Black Diamond Therapeutics (BDTX) 10-K2021 FY Annual report

Our business is subject to numerous material and other risks and uncertainties that you should be aware of in evaluating our business, including those described in Part II, Item IA. “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. These risks include, but are not limited to, the following:

From time to time, we may use our website or our LinkedIn profile at linkedin.com/company/black-diamond-therapeutics to distribute material information. Our financial and other material information is routinely posted to and accessible on the Investors section of our website, available at www.blackdiamondtherapeutics.com. Investors are encouraged to review the Investors section of our website because we may post material information on that site that is not otherwise disseminated by us. Information that is contained in and can be accessed through our website or our LinkedIn page is not incorporated into, and does not form a part of, this Annual Report.

This Annual Report contains forward-looking statements which are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report are forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may”, “will”, “should”, “expects”, “intends”, “plans”, “anticipates”, “believes”, “estimates”, “predicts”, “potential”, “continue” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. These statements are not guarantees of future results or performance and involve substantial risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking statements in this Annual Report include, but are not limited to, statements about:

Any forward-looking statements in this Annual Report reflect our current views with respect to future events and with respect to our future financial performance, and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include, among other things, those described under Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update or revise these forward-looking statements for any reason, even if new information becomes available in the future.

All of our forward-looking statements are as of the date of this Annual Report only. In each case, actual results may differ materially from such forward-looking information. We can give no assurance that such expectations or forward-looking statements will prove to be correct. An occurrence of or any material adverse change in one or more of the risk factors or risks and uncertainties referred to in this Annual Report or included in our other public disclosures or our other periodic reports or other documents or filings filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, could materially and adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. Some of these risks and uncertainties may in the future be amplified by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, including as a result of the emergence of new variants, and there may be additional risks that we consider immaterial or which are unknown. It is not possible to predict or identify all such risks. Except as required by law, we do not undertake or plan to update or revise any such forward-looking statements to reflect actual results, changes in plans, assumptions, estimates or projections or other circumstances affecting such forward-looking statements occurring after the date of this Annual Report, even if such results, changes or circumstances make it clear that any forward-looking information will not be realized. Any public statements or disclosures by us following this Annual Report that modify or impact any of the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report will be deemed to modify or supersede such statements in this Annual Report.

This Annual Report contains summaries of certain provisions contained in some of the documents described herein, but reference is made to the actual documents for complete information. All of the summaries are qualified in their entirety by the actual documents. Copies of some of the documents referred to herein have been filed as exhibits to this Annual Report.

We may from time to time provide estimates, projections and other information concerning our industry, the general business environment, and the markets for certain diseases, including estimates regarding the potential size of those markets and the estimated incidence and prevalence of certain medical conditions. Information that is based on estimates, forecasts, projections, market research or similar methodologies is inherently subject to uncertainties, and actual events, circumstances or numbers, including actual disease prevalence rates and market size, may differ materially from the information reflected in this Annual Report. Unless otherwise expressly stated, we obtained this industry, business information, market data, prevalence information and other data from reports, research surveys, studies and similar data prepared by market research firms and other third parties, industry, medical and general publications, government data, and similar sources, in some cases applying our own assumptions and analysis that may, in the future, prove not to have been accurate.

We are a precision oncology medicine company pioneering the discovery and development of MasterKey therapies. We target undrugged oncogenic driver mutations in patients with genetically defined cancers. The foundation of our company is built upon a deep understanding of cancer genetics, protein structure and function, and medicinal chemistry. Our proprietary technology platform, which we refer to as our Mutation-Allostery-Pharmacology, or MAP, drug discovery engine, is designed to allow us to analyze population-level genetic sequencing data to discover oncogenic mutations that promote cancer across tumor types. Our goal is to identify families of mutations that can be inhibited with MasterKey therapies thereby providing precision oncology to greater numbers of patients with genetically defined tumors.

We have designed our clinical-stage product candidates, BDTX-1535 and BDTX-189, to potently and selectively inhibit families of oncogenic mutations which occur across a range of tumor types that affect the ErbB-1 epidermal growth factor receptor, or EGFR, and in the case of BDTX-189 also affect the tyrosine-protein kinase ErbB-2, or HER2. We have designed these product candidates to bind to the active site of these mutant kinases and inhibit their function. BDTX-1535 and BDTX-189 are also designed to spare normal, or wild type, EGFR (EGFR WT), which we believe will improve upon the toxicity profiles of current ErbB family inhibitors. We are also leveraging our MAP drug discovery engine to identify other families of non-canonical mutations in validated oncogenes beyond the ErbB family, which has the potential to expand the reach of targeted therapies.

Approved targeted therapies, such as kinase inhibitors, have transformed the treatment of cancers and demonstrated a significant benefit to certain patients by treating active site mutations in a single tumor type. Improved genetic sequencing of cancers has led to the discovery of additional oncogenic genetic alterations. These genetic alterations were previously unaddressed, unsuccessfully targeted or overlooked. Our MAP drug discovery engine is designed to reveal the oncogenic nature of families of undrugged driver mutations and their associated protein conformations. We believe this approach offers a substantial opportunity to expand the number of patients who could benefit from precision oncology medicines.

Our proprietary MAP drug discovery engine is built on three central pillars:

Glioblastoma (GBM) is a difficult-to-treat, aggressive malignancy of the central nervous system. Standard therapy at diagnosis consists of surgical resection followed by radiation and chemotherapy, but prognosis remains poor with only approximately 25% of newly diagnosed patients surviving two years or longer after diagnosis. Almost 50 percent of glioblastoma tumors express one or more EGFR oncogenic alterations that affect the extracellular region of the receptor tyrosine kinase, consequently promoting oncogenic activation. We believe that current targeted therapies have been unsuccessful in treating glioblastoma due to (i) the concurrent expression of different EGFR oncogenic alterations within individual patients, (ii) insufficient drug potency across different EGFR oncogenic alterations, (iii) paradoxical activation of mutant EGFR commonly found in glioblastoma by earlier generation inhibitors, and iv) low levels of brain penetration. We have shown in preclinical models that the mechanism of activation for these EGFR

oncogenic alterations involves the formation of a constitutive dimer that exhibits a conformation which leads to ligand-independent signaling and that is shared by a family of extracellular domain EGFR alterations expressed in glioblastoma.

In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), EGFR inhibitors have demonstrated significant clinical benefit in patients with primary EGFR activating mutations and are the current first-line standard of care. However, over time, almost all patients acquire resistance and relapse. Furthermore, up to half of all NSCLC patients either have central nervous system (CNS) metastases at diagnosis or will develop them while on treatment. The majority of first- and second-generation EGFR inhibitors do not adequately penetrate the CNS, and while third-generation CNS penetrant, EGFR inhibitors such as osimertinib may delay the progression of CNS metastases, there are few options remaining to patients when resistance inevitably arises.

BDTX-1535 is designed as a potent, selective, irreversible and brain-penetrant small molecule inhibitor that targets a family of EGFR oncogenic alterations including those expressed in glioblastoma that promote a constitutive dimer without paradoxical activation. As such, BDTX-1535 has the potential to fill a critical need for a brain-penetrant inhibitor that addresses the limitations of other EGFR directed therapies previously studied in glioblastoma. Additionally, BDTX-1535 inhibits a spectrum of canonical, intrinsic resistance (Exon18, Exon 21, and others), and acquired resistance (C797S associated with resistance to third generation EGFR inhibitors) EGFR mutations found in patients with solid tumors such as NSCLC, including those with brain metastases.

The Investigational New Drug application, or IND, for BDTX-1535 was cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on January 6, 2022, and the Phase 1 clinical trial was initiated in the first quarter of 2022. The Phase 1 dose-escalation portion will enroll patients harboring EGFR oncogenic alterations both in glioblastoma and NSCLC, with or without brain metastases.

BDTX-189 is designed as an orally available, irreversible small molecule inhibitor that targets a spectrum of 48 non-canonical and canonical driver mutations of EGFR and HER2 while sparing EGFR WT while also being a potent inhibitor of HER2 wild type (HER2 WT). These mutations are present in solid tumors including NSCLC, breast, gastric, colon, and endometrial cancers. Currently, there are no drugs approved by the FDA that target all of these oncogenic mutations with a single therapy.

BDTX-189 is designed as a highly selective, potent inhibitor that targets this spectrum of oncogenic proteins defined by the non-canonical EGFR and HER2 driver mutations, while also sparing WT EGFR. In preclinical models, BDTX-189 exhibited anti-tumor activity evidenced by potent tumor growth inhibition and tumor regression.

We initiated the MasterKey-01 trial in January of 2020. Clinical data obtained from the MasterKey-01 study to date have demonstrated a favorable tolerability profile for BDTX-189 and early signs of clinical activity in patients whose tumors are driven by MasterKey mutation families, including two confirmed partial responses in heavily pretreated patients who remained on treatment for more than 10 months. The dose-escalation portion of the trial has been completed with the recommended Phase 2 dose, or RP2D, established. Due to the rapid evolution of the treatment landscape in NSCLC harboring either EGFR or HER2 exon 20 insertion mutations, we announced in January 2022 that we would gate the initiation of the Phase 2 portion of the MasterKey-01 study and determine next steps in development based on further clinical data obtained from the safety expansion cohort at the recommended Phase 2 dose.

FDA-approved BRAF inhibitors against V600E (Class I) mutations are not active against non-canonical oncogenic BRAF mutations. Non-canonical oncogenic mutations, including BRAF-fusions, can drive RAS-independent (Class II) or RAS-dependent (Class III) RAF dimers. In addition, the approved BRAF inhibitors can induce unwanted paradoxical activation that limits their breadth of activity and can result in cutaneous toxicity. Furthermore, the expression of BRAF mutations commonly occurs in patients with central nervous system (CNS) tumors or with brain metastasis, but currently approved drugs have poor intrinsic brain penetration. There remains a high unmet clinical need for a broad mutation spectrum and CNS penetrant BRAF inhibitor to treat patients expressing BRAF mutations with a precision medicine therapy.

Our development candidate, BDTX-4933, is designed to be a highly selective, potent and brain-penetrant small molecule inhibitor that targets a family of Class I, II, and III canonical and non-canonical BRAF alterations while avoiding paradoxical activation.

We initiated IND-enabling studies for BDTX-4933 in the first quarter of 2022.

We are also progressing our early-stage research programs targeting groups of oncogenic mutations in kinases relevant to cancer and/or rare genetic diseases that we have developed utilizing our MAP drug discovery engine, including our program targeting fibroblast growth factor receptor, or FGFR. We anticipate selection of a development candidate for our FGFR program in 2022.

Our vision is to build a differentiated, global biopharmaceutical company by discovering, developing, and commercializing novel precision medicines for every patient with genetically defined tumors. We are advancing the field of precision medicines through improved understanding of mutant protein conformations to (i) identify novel oncogenic driver mutations and (ii) target families of oncogenic mutations with individual MasterKey therapies. We believe our strategy will enable us to become an industry leader in precision oncology medicine and advance a portfolio of tumor-agnostic product candidates aimed at delivering safe and effective medicines to patients. The critical components of our strategy include:

We were founded by Dr. David M. Epstein and Dr. Elizabeth Buck in 2014 and, beginning in 2017, together with Versant Ventures started building the MAP drug discovery engine and chemistry discovery engine. We have assembled a team with significant expertise in drug discovery and development with particular strengths in the discovery of small molecule protein kinase inhibitors. David M. Epstein, Ph.D., our President and Chief Executive Officer, was previously Chief Scientific Officer at OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and founder of Archemix Corporation, where he led the advancement of multiple product candidates into the clinic across several therapeutic areas. Elizabeth Buck, Ph.D., our Chief Scientific Officer, previously led preclinical pharmacology and oncology translational research at OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Brent Hatzis-Schoch, our Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel, was previously General Counsel at Radius Health, Inc. Fang Ni, Pharm.D., our Chief Business Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer, previously served as Principal and was a member of the investment team at Versant Ventures. Karsten Witt, M.D., our Interim Chief Medical Officer, previously led clinical development at Array Biopharma Inc. and OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr. Witt has been involved in eight regulatory approvals, four of which are related to Tarceva (erlotinib), an approved kinase inhibitor for the treatment of certain lung and pancreatic cancers. Elizabeth Montgomery, our Chief People Officer, previously served as Chief People Officer at ClearView Healthcare Partners.

Cancer is a genetic disease that is caused by changes in DNA that control the way cells function, especially how they grow and divide, and has historically been diagnosed and treated based on a tumor’s organ site or tissue of origin. Oncogene addiction, which is the dependency of tumors on genetic drivers for their growth and survival advantage, has enabled the pharmacological development of targeted therapies that exploit this dependency. Recent advances in genetic sequencing and a better understanding of genetic alterations that drive cancers have facilitated more precise and histologically agnostic cancer drug development.

These targeted therapies have transformed the treatment of some cancers by providing substantial clinical benefit and have emerged as an important part of standard of care for cancer patients. Worldwide sales of kinase inhibitors, one class of targeted therapies, exceeded $35 billion in 2019. Furthermore, patients with tumors driven by oncogene addiction typically show rapid and measurable tumor shrinkage when exposed to drugs targeting the relevant alteration. Such clinical responses can be dramatic enough in many cases to support expedited regulatory approval of these targeted therapies. Yet, a recent analysis found that less than fifteen percent of patients with metastatic cancer have tumors with genetic profiles that could make them eligible for treatment with an approved precision oncology medicine.

Existing targeted therapies have been effective because they target genetically defined cancers driven by a single set of mutations. Genetic sequencing of tumors reveals that many mutations remain uncharacterized, suggesting that there are additional mutations that can lead to oncogene addiction. With its supplemental approval by the FDA in 2017, pembrolizumab, or Keytruda, was the first targeted oncology treatment approved for any solid tumor based on a molecular profile, regardless of the tumor’s site of origin. In 2018, larotrectinib, or Vitrakvi, was approved by the FDA for neurotrophic tropomyosin receptor kinase, or NTRK, driven cancers, making it the first drug to be approved to treat a specific genetic alteration in a tissue agnostic fashion. We believe that these advancements represent a fundamental change in the development of targeted therapies and will increasingly lead to cancer being characterized for treatment in a genetic, rather than in a tissue-specific manner.

Current targeted therapies provide clinical benefit to patients expressing ATP-site mutations but not to patients expressing other mutations. Numerous other mutations beyond the active site mutations are known to the oncology clinical and research community, but those other mutations are often not currently targeted by approved inhibitors. For example, while EGFR-targeted therapies, including erlotinib and osimertinib, have proven to be effective in patients with ATP-site mutations, limited response to these inhibitors has been observed when treating patients with cancers expressing other types of oncogenic EGFR driver mutations, including those expressed outside of the ATP site, such as EGFR exon 20 insertions and extracellular domain mutations such as EGFRvIII. There remains a significant unmet medical need for new drugs that can extend precision medicines to patients expressing non-ATP site or non-canonical mutations. The figure below depicts the oncogenic EGFR mutations, shown in magenta. These include the ATP-site mutations, EGFR exon 19 deletions and L858R (left panel), as well as an additional spectrum of mutations occurring outside of the ATP site, including EGFRvIII (middle panel) and EGFR exon 20 insertions (right panel).

The cancer treatment landscape is rapidly evolving, and there is now widespread recognition that cancer is a disease of genetics, as much as it is a disease defined by histology or anatomical location. This shift has been driven by the increased use of genetic sequencing coupled with the availability of approved targeted therapies. The FDA has approved Foundation Medicine’s comprehensive genetic profiling test FoundationOne CDx and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced coverage of next generation genetic sequencing tests, which we believe will further drive the use of genetic testing. A 2019 study demonstrated that 75 percent of oncologists in the United States employ genetic sequencing. As technological advancements in genetic sequencing improve and an increasing number of targeted therapies are developed, we believe that physicians will require molecular information about their patients’ cancers to determine the optimal course of treatment. Not only have advances in genetic sequencing changed the standard of care for oncology patients, but they are also leading to transformations in the discovery and development of oncology drugs.

We believe that genetic sequencing enables the discovery of additional targets for drug development. More than 400 cancer-associated genes are routinely sequenced, and analysis of this data has shown that mutations are not restricted to specific regions, but rather are spread more broadly throughout entire sequences of genes. We believe that such mutations have not yet been systematically studied as potential drug targets or their oncogenic proteins targeted in drug discovery efforts, and that our ability to do so represents a significant opportunity to develop precision medicines in areas of major unmet medical need.

At Black Diamond Therapeutics, our goal is to bring precision oncology medicine to patients with genetically defined cancers who have limited treatment options. Our drug development efforts leverage our novel findings that:

We believe we can address certain key limitations of current generation precision medicine therapies in oncology by applying our MAP drug discovery engine to identify and target novel classes of oncogenic mutations. We believe this enables us to design and develop potential therapies for patients for whom there are currently no targeted treatment options.

Our MAP drug discovery engine is built on three central pillars: Mutation—Allostery—Pharmacology.

Our discovery process begins by identifying oncogenic mutations. We use population-level cancer genetic data obtained from all tumor types, to identify potential families of mutations that occur within individual oncogenes.

We have developed unique insights into the specific structural features of a protein that are associated with oncogenic mutations. The algorithm underlying our MAP drug discovery engine scores each mutation for its potential oncogenicity, which we refer to as a MAP score. We use our algorithm as a machine-learning tool to predict the oncogenicity of various uncharacterized mutations, isolating oncogenic driver mutations from the silent and passenger mutations. We map these mutations onto the 3-dimensional structure of a protein to determine which of the many mutations expressed by human tumors occur at sites associated with oncogenicity.

For HER2 and EGFR, we observed that oncogenic mutations are distributed nearly uniformly throughout the sequence of these two genes, revealing many mutations occurring outside of the ATP site, which have not been targeted by drugs.

For example, applying our algorithm to all currently known mutations in HER2 alone reveals a subset of mutations with high MAP scores, which we believe is a predictor of oncogenicity. For the ErbB family, we observed 3,868 unique mis-sense mutations (935 mutations in EGFR, 670 mutations in HER2, 794 mutations in HER3 and 1,469 mutations in HER4). These mutations are distributed throughout the target sequence. As illustrated in the figure below, we observed 670 unique mutations expressed in HER2, detected within a combined human tumor data set of approximately 70,000 cases (GENIE 5.0 and TCGA data sets). Through this analysis, we re-identified or confirmed the known HER2 oncogenic mutations, which are the mutations that we targeted with our BDTX-189 product candidate. We also identified an additional subset of mutations with high MAP scores, and we are currently validating these putative oncogenic mutations experimentally. Our goal is to expand our targeted mutation family to potentially include this additional group of non-canonical mutations.

Our genetic sequencing analysis has identified a family of 48 non-canonical mutations in both the extracellular and kinase domains of EGFR and HER2. The figure below is a compilation of the non-canonical EGFR and HER2 oncogenic mutations that we are targeting in both of our ErbB programs. Each dot represents a unique non-canonical EGFR and HER2 oncogenic mutation found in individual tumors, while the height of each dot represents the frequency at which such mutation was found. The sites of two mutations defined as canonical mutations are indicated. The frequency for EGFR oncogenic mutations expressed in glioblastoma was calculated as relative frequency within glioblastoma. The frequency for all other EGFR and HER2 mutations was calculated relative to all solid tumors (approximately 70,000 tumors within project GENIE 5.0 / TCGA dataset). Specifically, the figure shows the prevalence of various types of alterations of EGFR expressed in glioblastoma (EGFRvIII, EGFRvII, EGFRvVI, three mutations affecting EGFR-A289 and two mutations affecting EGFR-G598) and various types of EGFR and HER2 alterations expressed across solid tumors (two mutations affecting HER2-S310, HER2-R678Q, six unique mutations affecting HER2-L755, four unique mutations affecting HER2-V777, HER2-V842I, 46 unique mutations that are deletions within exon 19, and 28 unique mutations that are insertions within exon 20 and EGFR-L858R).

We selected 43 additional HER2 mutations to experimentally test for oncogenicity using the BaF3 transformation assay. Thirty-three of the 43 mutations tested had high MAP scores and were therefore predicted to have oncogenic behavior, while ten of the 43 mutations had low MAP scores and were therefore not predicted to be oncogenic. In this screen, we also tested HER2 WT and three HER2 mutations that we had already observed to have oncogenic behavior. HER2 WT was unable to transform BaF3 cells to IL-3 independent proliferation, while all three validated HER2 oncogenic mutations (HER2-V842I, L755S and S310F) successfully transformed cells, as evidenced by greater than three-fold proliferation over a seven-day period. Of the 33 mutations with high MAP scores that were predicted to be oncogenic, 15 were transformative. In contrast, among the group of mutations with low MAP scores that were not predicted to have oncogenic behavior, only two transformed BaF3 cells to proliferate greater than three-fold over seven days. We found newly characterized mutations to be sensitive to BDTX-189, as evidenced below with potent inhibition of proliferation against cells transformed by the HER2-R103Q mutation.

We evaluate the oncogenicity of these mutations occurring outside of the ATP site and use our preclinical models to reveal how they drive protein conformation change to promote oncogenicity. We then use these models to determine whether drug sensitivity profile, or pharmacology, of the ATP site is altered. We use this information to group into oncogene families that share a similar ATP site pharmacology.

In the ErbB space, the drug selectivity patterns of mutant EGFR and HER2 kinases provide evidence of unique conformational states driven by mutation. As illustrated in the figure below, dimerization is required for receptor activation, an important step in oncogenic signaling. In EGFR WT, the binding of a ligand to the extracellular domain promotes an active dimer conformation. In the case of EGFR WT, this is a transient dimer conformation. We have discovered that a family of EGFR and HER2 mutations activate these kinases and promote oncogenicity by stabilizing the kinase in a unique constitutive dimer conformation. Importantly, the constitutive dimer conformation results in a change in selectivity for drugs which bind to the ATP site, potentially reducing the effectiveness of currently approved targeted therapies, such as erlotinib.

We apply molecular dynamics to simulate the conformational state for any given mutation, and in this manner deliver design ready conformations for drug discovery. Our team of experienced medicinal and computational chemists seek to leverage these conformations to design and identify small molecules that bind to the active site and inhibit the target only when it is in the unique conformation promoted by the non-canonical oncogenic mutations we identified. Combining a multidimensional medicinal chemistry lead identification and optimization strategy with our proprietary know-how in drug design, we aim to identify small molecules with bespoke selectivity against the entire desired spectrum of mutations as a family, while at the same time sparing inhibition of the wild type form of the protein or other unwanted targets.

For the development of BDTX-189, our ErbB product candidate that is currently in clinical development, we utilized these cell and tumor models as biological screens that recapitulate the tumor biology for these mutations. BDTX-189 binds to the ATP-site to inhibit the constitutive dimer in a family of EGFR and HER2 mutations, while at the same time sparing inhibition of the normal EGFR WT. We have validated the activity for BDTX-189 against the most commonly occurring mutations representing each of these types of mutations (HER2-S310F, HER2-R678Q, HER2-

L755S, HER2-V777L, HER2-V842I, the EGFR Exon 20 insertions EGFR-ASV/SVD/NPH/FQEA, the HER2 Exon 20 insertions HER2-YVMA/GSP, the EGFR Exon 19 deletion EGFR-746-750, and EGFR-L858R).

We are leveraging our MAP drug discovery engine to develop a drug pipeline of orally available, potent and spectrum-selective small molecule kinase inhibitors that target genetic drivers in several cancers. We own worldwide commercial rights to all of our product candidates.

EGFR is a potent oncogene commonly altered in many cancers, including glioblastoma and NSCLC. EGFR alterations, EGFR mutations in glioblastoma occur primarily in the extracellular domain, while NSCLC mutations more commonly impact the kinase domain.

Almost 50 percent of glioblastoma tumors express one or more EGFR alterations that affect the extracellular region of the receptor kinase and promote oncogenic activation. These include large deletions in the extracellular domain, including the mutants EGFRvIII, EGFRvVI, and EGFRvII. These also include any one of a number of short variants, single amino acid substitutions affecting the extracellular domain, the most common of which are substitutions at position A289. These mutants are constitutively active, exhibit sustained signaling that is resistant to downregulation, and are both transforming and tumorigenic. Their expression has been associated with poor long-term overall survival.

EGFR oncogenic mutations are expressed throughout the target sequence. The figure below shows the most frequent EGFR oncogenic mutations expressed in glioblastoma (EGFRvIII, EGFRvII, EGFRvVI, EGFR-G598 mutations, EGFR-A289 mutations) which was calculated as relative frequency within glioblastoma (Brennan et al Cell 2013). Each dot represents a unique oncogenic mutation found in individual tumors and the height of each dot represents the frequency with which it was found. A given glioblastoma patient may co-express multiple different EGFR oncogenic mutations. Therefore, we believe a critical challenge to overcome in drug discovery and clinical development of targeted therapies is to develop precision medicines for glioblastoma that efficiently block the oncogenic activity across all of these various EGFR species.

We have shown that the mechanism of activation for these EGFR mutants requires formation of a covalent dimer, which is always active, also known as a constitutive dimer. The formatting of these constitutive dimers is essential for oncogenicity. No current generation EGFR-directed therapy has proved effective in treating patients that express these mutations. We believe that current targeted therapies have been unsuccessful in treating glioblastoma due to (i) the concurrent expression of these EGFR oncogenic alterations within individual patients, (ii) insufficient drug potency for EGFR oncogenic alterations, (iii) reversible binding mode leading to paradoxical activation and iv) low levels of brain penetration. The figure below illustrates distinct EGFR oncogenic mutations (EGFRvIII, EGFRvII, EGFRvI, EGFR-A289V) that share the ability to promote constitutively active, ligand independent dimer conformation, which is different from the transient dimer conformation for EGFR WT. For mutants, the region surrounding each mutation site is highlighted in magenta. For EGFR WT, bound EGF ligand is shown in dark purple.

Current reversible EGFR inhibitors, including those proven clinically efficacious in NSCLC, have not demonstrated clinical activity in glioblastoma. We believe this is, in part, due to reversible inhibitors, such as erlotinib, causing paradoxical activation of EGFR alterations. As shown in the figure below, erlotinib demonstrates antiproliferative activity in models harboring an exon 19 deletion mutation common in NSCLC. However, in a glioblastoma model expressing EGFRvIII, erlotinib results in paradoxical activation which increases tumor proliferation at certain dose levels. We believe the irreversible binding profile of BDTX-1535 offers an opportunity to avoid paradoxical activation and inhibit the locked dimers formed by EGFR alterations commonly seen in glioblastoma.

In NSCLC, EGFR inhibitors have demonstrated significant clinical benefit in patients with primary EGFR activating mutations and are the current first-line standard of care. However, over time, almost all patients acquire resistance and relapse. For the third generation EGFR inhibitor osimertinib, acquired resistance can be associated with the acquisition of the EGFR-C797S mutation against which osimertinib is inactive. Additionally, a subset of NSCLC patients at primary diagnosis harbor intrinsic resistance EGFR mutations including complex mutations that are poorly addressed with current therapies. Furthermore, up to half of all NSCLC patients either have central nervous system (CNS) metastases at diagnosis or will develop them while on treatment. The majority of first- and second-generation EGFR inhibitors do not adequately penetrate the CNS, and while third generation, brain-penetrant EGFR inhibitors such as osimertinib may delay the progression of CNS metastases, there are few options remaining to patients when resistance inevitably arises. Thus, treatment for patients who have progressed on current EGFR targeted agents with acquired mutations that drive resistance, including for patients with brain metastases, remains an area of high unmet medical need in NSCLC.

In November 2020, we announced the nomination of BDTX-1535 as a development candidate for the treatment of glioblastoma and NSCLC with or without brain metastases. BDTX-1535 is a potent, selective, irreversible and brain-penetrant small molecule inhibitor designed to address the critical unmet need in glioblastoma and NSCLC driven by EGFR alterations. The pharmacological activity of BDTX-1535 was optimized to inhibit a wide spectrum of EGFR mutations that drive acquired and intrinsic resistance mechanisms, as well as targeting the CNS tumor settings through its potential for high brain exposure.

In cell-based assays, BDTX-1535 achieved potent MasterKey inhibition of all members of the family of oncogenic EGFR variants expressed in glioblastoma and EGFR amplification with selectivity versus normally expressed EGFR WT as well as classical, intrinsic resistance and acquired resistance mutations expressed in NSCLC.

Anti-proliferative activity of BDTX-1535 against BaF3 transformants expressing an exemplary family of EGFR alterations associated with glioblastoma (A) and NSCLC (B) versus EGFR WT expressing H292 cells or EGFR amplified A431 cells.

Additionally, BDTX-1535 achieved complete and sustained inhibition (>24 hours) of the phosphorylated state of EGFR in a mouse model expressing the common glioblastoma mutation, EGFRvIII, consistent with its irreversible binding mechanism demonstrated in vitro to EGFR WT. Furthermore, BDTX-1535 demonstrated tumor growth inhibition in a mouse model bearing intracranial GBM6 PDX expressing EGFRvIII and EGFR amplification, supporting its ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier. BDTX-1535 also achieved sustained inhibition (>24 hours) of the phosphorylated state of EGFR in cells harboring the NSCLC acquired resistance mutation, C797S, as well as tumor growth inhibition in a mouse model bearing PDX tumors expressing C797S. This indicated that BDTX-1535 retains its ability to irreversibly bind to the serine 797 mutant residue that can be acquired after treatment with third generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors used in the first line setting.

Furthermore, in mouse models, BDTX-1535 achieved tumor growth inhibition and regression in multiple subcutaneous mouse models bearing PDX and allograft tumors representing a spectrum of EGFR alterations. These models were selected to cover the EGFR alterations commonly found in patients with glioblastoma as well as classical, intrinsic resistance, and acquired resistance mutations found in NSCLC patients.

The IND for BDTX-1535 was cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on January 6, 2022, and the Phase 1 clinical trial was initiated in the first quarter of 2022. The Phase 1 trial is an open-label, multicenter study designed to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and preliminary antitumor activity of BDTX-1535 in patients with glioblastoma and NSCLC harboring EGFR MasterKey alterations.

Our Phase 1 trial is an open-label, multicenter study designed to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and preliminary antitumor activity of BDTX-1535 in patients with either recurrent glioblastoma expressing EGFR alterations and patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC harboring sensitizing EGFR mutations, with or without brain metastases who have progressed on an approved EGFR inhibitor. Eligible NSCLC patients must have either an intrinsic resistance EGFR mutation in exon 18-21 or an acquired C797S mutation following 1st line therapy with a 3rd-generation EGFR inhibitor. Once a provisional RP2D has been established, BDTX-1535 monotherapy will be explored in disease specific dose expansion cohorts to further evaluate safety, PK, and preliminary assessment of efficacy. The disease specific dose expansion includes: patients with recurrent glioblastoma with EGFR alterations, patients with locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC with an acquired resistance EGFR mutation (e.g., C797S) with and without brain metastases, and patients with locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC with oncogenic EGFR intrinsic resistance mutations (e.g., G719X) with and without brain metastases.

Our regulatory strategy includes pursuing a registration path for patients with recurrent glioblastoma in parallel with NSCLC patients with either intrinsic resistance mutations or acquired resistance mutations.

We expect to provide an update on the clinical data obtained from the Phase 1 trial in the second half of 2023.

Mutations in EGFR and HER2, both of the ErbB family, are found in one to two percent of a large variety of solid tumors but are overexpressed in tumors such as advanced NSCLC, invasive breast, bladder and endometrial cancer, where incidence ranges from two to seven percent. Currently available EGFR and HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitors or monoclonal antibodies have limited or no anti-tumor activity against these genetic alterations due to insufficient potency or lack of selectivity, which results in toxicity before adequate exposures can be achieved. There remains a significant unmet medical need for new drugs that can extend targeted therapies to patients expressing non-canonical mutations outside of the ATP site.

BDTX-189 is designed as an orally available irreversible, small molecule inhibitor that targets undrugged oncogenic driver mutations in HER2 and EGFR. These include extracellular domain mutations of HER2, as well as EGFR and HER2 kinase domain exon 20 insertions, and additional activating oncogenic driver mutations. Currently, there are no FDA approved drugs that target all of these mutations with a single small molecule therapy.

We are currently enrolling patients in the Phase 1 monotherapy safety expansion portion of the trial at the RP2D in patients with selected tumor types with EGFR or HER2 mutations, including exon 20 insertions.

The figure below shows the selectivity pattern for BDTX-189 for non-canonical oncogenic mutations and additional oncogenic drivers of EGFR and HER2 (with wild type for reference), each as determined by measuring 50 percent inhibition, or IC50, values.

In cell-based assays, BDTX-189 achieved potent inhibition of each of the 48 oncogenic ErbB mutant variants tested with an average selectivity versus EGFR WT of greater than 50-fold, including the family of EGFR and HER2 exon 20 insertion mutations.

BDTX-189 has demonstrated in vitro activity against the canonical activating EGFR mutations (exon 19 deletion and L858R mutation), as well as potent HER2 WT activity, or HER2-positive.

A favorable therapeutic window over EGFR WT was a key design objective in the ErbB program. BDTX-189 achieved high selectivity for cells expressing the targeted oncogenic EGFR and HER2 mutants and the compound spares cells expressing EGFR WT (A431 and H292).

We believe BDTX-189 has an excellent kinome selectivity profile, as determined using the DiscoverX KINOMEscan methodology testing 468 kinases. BDTX-189 exhibited binding affinity for the isolated kinase domains of EGFR and HER2 of less than 1nM. All but eight kinases outside of the ErbB family showed no or very poor binding when BDTX-189 was tested at a single concentration of 100nM, with selectivity estimated to be greater than 125-fold for EGFR selectivity and greater than 30-fold for HER2 selectivity. The selectivity for ErbB kinases versus a small subset of kinases (BLK, BTK, LCK, LOK and MEK5) was determined to be greater than 10-fold. The only kinase that was bound with less than 10-fold selectivity is RIPK2, and this activity is not expected to be dose limiting.

In preclinical animal models, BDTX-189 was observed to have high potency and fast irreversible inactivation of the desired mutations. BDTX-189 displayed a favorable pharmacokinetic profile with fast absorption, good exposure and subsequent swift elimination, together with rapid irreversible target inhibition. BDTX-189 was observed to be well suited to engage and inactivate the EGFR and HER2 mutants in vivo. In acute dose pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic, or PK/PD, studies, oral administration of BDTX-189 to athymic nude mice bearing a range of EGFR and HER2 mutations resulted in potent and sustained suppression of target phosphorylation for at least 24 hours following dosing.

We used a PK/PD analysis of the HER2-S310F BaF3 allograft tumor inhibition studies to assess the PK/PD driver for efficacy using different doses and dose regimens to project expected human exposures to be associated with anti-tumor activity.

We submitted our IND for BDTX-189 in November 2019, which was allowed by the FDA on December 13, 2019. Enrollment and dosing of patients in the Phase 1 dose-escalation portion of our MasterKey-01 trial has been completed with the recommended Phase 2 dose, or RP2D, established to be 800 mg once daily with a meal (non-fasting) which also was endorsed by the FDA. The Phase 1 safety expansion cohort is currently enrolling at the RP2D to further evaluate the safety, PK and preliminary efficacy in patients with selected tumor types and genomic alterations to inform the future development of the program.

Our Phase 1 portion was designed to allow for greater flexibility and precision to determine the appropriate dose and schedule for further clinical evaluation. The Phase 1 trial was a two-step process where step one was a single-patient cohort, accelerated dose-escalation process until grade 2 drug-related adverse events were observed or until the 400 mg once daily dose level was opened for enrollment. Step 2 was designed to provide the flexibility to enroll three or more patients in dose-escalating cohorts. The study initially evaluated once daily dosing in fasted state, but also evaluated a twice daily dosing schedule. In the Phase 1 dose-escalation portion, 59 patients were enrolled in the once daily dose schedule with advanced or metastatic solid tumors for whom no standard therapy was available or for whom standard therapy was considered unsuitable or intolerable, as determined by the investigator. The patients were heavily pretreated with multiple different solid tumors expressing multiple EGFR or HER2 genomic alterations. This includes 31 patients treated at 800 mg, with 18 patients administered BDTX-189 under fasting conditions and 13 patients administered BDTX-189 once daily with a meal which was determined to be the RP2D and schedule. The dose of 800 mg once daily either fasting or non-fasting was well tolerated with no dose-limiting toxicities reported and a low rate of typical EGFR wild type skin disorders. The pharmacokinetics of BDTX-189 showed dose-dependent increases in exposures up to and including 800 mg. There was also evidence of early signs of clinical antitumor activity including two confirmed partial responses in patients who remained on treatment for more than 10 months. We are currently enrolling the safety expansion cohort at the RP2D to inform the future development of the program.

Our regulatory strategy includes periodic dialogue with the FDA regarding the study design, patient population, study endpoint and companion diagnostic strategy for the BDTX-189 development program. For example, in March 2021, we met with the FDA to discuss the registrational potential and design of the then planned Phase 2 portion of the trial. At the meeting with the FDA, the FDA notified us that, because the Phase 2 portion of the trial would be potentially registrational and support a new drug application, we could only enroll up to 50 patients in Phase 2 before results of routine three-month good laboratory practice, or GLP, toxicology studies have been submitted and accepted by the FDA. This partial clinical hold on Phase 2 enrollment was not based on any safety findings from the MasterKey-01 trial and has no impact on completion of our Phase 1 study (including the currently enrolling safety expansion cohort). We have completed the three-month GLP toxicology studies and submitted the reports to the FDA who accepted the findings and lifted the partial clinical hold in January 2022.

In July 2020, the FDA granted Fast Track designation to BDTX-189 for the treatment of adult patients with solid tumors harboring an oncogenic HER2 mutation or an EGFR or HER2 Exon 20 insertion mutation who have progressed following prior treatment and who have no satisfactory treatment options. We may also seek Breakthrough Therapy designation by the FDA.

Oncogenic alterations affecting BRAF include the V600E mutation (Class I) active site mutation together with families of non-canonical BRAF mutations (Class II and Class III) that are active as dimers. While the V600E Class I mutation has been successfully targeted in melanoma, there are currently no approved therapies that target the full spectrum of Class II and Class III mutations that are expressed in melanoma and a range of other solid tumors. Additionally, expression of all classes of BRAF mutations commonly occurs in patients with CNS tumors or with brain metastasis, which currently remain unaddressed by approved drugs due to their poor brain penetration. Approved BRAF inhibitors can lead to unwanted paradoxical activation, which may lead to poor efficacy and secondary malignancies.

Our BRAF development candidate, BDTX-4933, is designed as a brain-penetrant, small molecule MasterKey inhibitor of oncogenic BRAF Class I, II and III alterations expressed by human cancers, while avoiding paradoxical activation. We believe that BDTX-4933 could offer an improved approach for treating melanoma, NSCLC and other solid tumors expressing Class I mutations with brain metastases as well as cancers expressing Class I, II and III alterations, including CNS diseases such as gliomas.

In cell-based assays, BDTX-4933 demonstrated potent inhibition of a wide spectrum of BRAF alterations including fusions and exhibited dose-dependent inhibition of cell proliferation. In preclinical BRAF-driven tumor models expressing Class I, II and III mutations, daily dosing of BDTX-4933 demonstrated dose-dependent tumor growth inhibition, tumor regression and survival, consistent with potent on-target and on-pathway inhibition. BDTX-4933 also demonstrated robust brain penetration properties and activity in intracranial mouse tumor models expressing the Class I V600E mutation.

We anticipate initiating IND-enabling studies for the BDTX-4933 program in 2022.

We are applying our MAP drug discovery engine to the analysis of the mutation landscape of more than 300 genes, including 92 kinases within Foundation Medicine’s FoundationOne CDx test panel. We are advancing several early programs focused on targeting a range of driver mutations, including activating mutations. We believe these general principles also apply to targets associated with diseases outside of oncology, and we are currently evaluating additional groups of targets for drug discovery. As part of our ongoing efforts to leverage our know-how regarding mutations in the ErbB family, we continue to investigate novel potent and selective compounds directed against this family of targets.

Oncogenic mutations affecting FGFR2 and FGFR3 (including short variant point mutations and fusions) are expressed across a range of cancers such as bladder and cholangiocarcinoma. While these mutations have been targeted by three first generation pan-FGFR inhibitors (erdafitinib, pemigatinib and infigratinib), clinical success has been hindered by dose limiting toxicities related to on-target inhibition of FGFR1, which causes hyperphosphatemia and the need for significant dose interruptions and dose reductions, and even discontinuation. Furthermore, current FGFR inhibitors are limited by acquired resistance due to mutation of gatekeeper positions in FGFR2/3, which are residues that modulate access to the ATP-binding site. These limitations limit the efficacy of current generation FGFR targeted therapies.

Our FGFR program leverages our MAP drug discovery engine to (i) define the full spectrum of FGFR2/3 oncogenic mutations; (ii) classify mutations according to unifying conformational changes; and (iii) design small molecule inhibitors that are active against the full spectrum of oncogenic FGFR2/3 mutations, exhibit improved resistance profile versus the clinically relevant gatekeeper mutations and achieve selectivity versus FGFR1. We believe that our MAP drug discovery engine drug discovery platform is differentiated by its capability to identify development candidates that are selective versus FGFR1.

BDTX FGFR program compounds are MasterKey inhibitors of oncogenic FGFR2/3 mutations with selectivity versus FGFR1 and activity against gatekeeper mutations. Tumor regression in mouse models has been observed. We anticipate selection of a development candidate for the BDTX FGFR program in 2022.

Our industry is intensely competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. While we believe that our knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face substantial competition from major pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, technical and human resources. Smaller and early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. As a result, our competitors may discover, develop, license or commercialize products before or more successfully than we do.

We face competition with respect to our current product candidates and will face competition with respect to future product candidates, from segments of the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other related markets that pursue targeted therapies for patients with genetically defined cancers.

There are currently compounds approved and in-development which target the EGFR pathway and against which we expect BDTX-1535 to compete:

There are currently compounds approved and in development which target the EGFR/HER2 pathway and against which we expect BDTX-189 to compete:

In addition, there are other small molecule and precision oncology-focused companies with whom we may eventually compete, including Loxo Oncology, Inc. (acquired by Eli Lilly and Company), SpringWorks Therapeutics, Inc., Centessa Pharmaceuticals plc, Theseus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Voronoi Inc., Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Turning Point Therapeutics, Inc., Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., Relay Therapeutics, Inc. and Kinnate Biopharma Inc.

Our competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their products more rapidly than we may or may obtain patent protection or other intellectual property rights that limit our ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates. Our competitors may also develop drugs that are more effective, more convenient, more widely used and less costly or have a better safety profile than our products and these competitors may also be more successful than us in manufacturing and marketing their products.

In addition, we will likely need to develop our product candidates in collaboration with diagnostic companies, and we will face competition from other companies in establishing these collaborations. Our competitors will also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, management and commercial personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Furthermore, we also face competition more broadly across the market for cost-effective and reimbursable cancer treatments. The most common methods of treating patients with cancer are surgery, radiation and drug therapy, including chemotherapy, hormone therapy and targeted drug therapy or a combination of such methods. There are a variety of available drug therapies marketed for cancer. In many cases, these drugs are administered in combination to enhance efficacy. While our product candidates, if any are approved, may compete with these existing drug and other therapies, to the extent they are ultimately used in combination with or as an adjunct to these therapies, our product candidates may not be competitive with them. Some of these drugs are branded and subject to patent protection, and others are available on a generic basis. Insurers and other third-party payors may also encourage the use of generic products or specific branded products. We expect that if our product candidates are approved, they will be priced at a significant premium over competitive generic, including branded generic, products. As a result, obtaining market acceptance of, and a gaining significant share of the market for, any of our product candidates that we successfully introduce to the market will pose challenges. In addition, many companies are developing new therapeutics, and we cannot predict what the standard of care will be as our product candidates progress through clinical development.

The acquisition or licensing of pharmaceutical products is also very competitive. If we seek to acquire or license products, we will face substantial competition from a number of more established companies, some of which have acknowledged strategies to license or acquire products and many of which are bigger than us and have more institutional experience and greater cash flows than we have. These more established companies may have competitive advantages over us, as may other emerging companies taking similar or different approaches to product licenses and/or acquisitions. In addition, a number of established research-based pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies may acquire products in late stages of development to augment their internal product lines, which may provide those companies with an even greater competitive advantage.

We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates undergoing preclinical testing, as well as for clinical testing and commercial manufacture if our product candidates receive marketing approval.

All of our product candidates are small molecules and are manufactured via synthetic processes from available starting materials. The chemistry appears amenable to scale up and does not currently require unusual equipment in the manufacturing process. We expect to continue to develop product candidates that can be produced cost-effectively at third-party contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs.

We generally expect to rely on one or more potential partners for the manufacture of companion diagnostics for our products, which are assays or tests to identify an appropriate patient population.

Subject to receiving marketing approvals, we expect to commence commercialization activities by building a focused sales and marketing organization in the United States to sell our products. We believe that such an organization will be able to address the community of oncologists who are the key specialists in treating the patient populations for which our product candidates are being developed. Outside the United States, we may enter into distribution and other marketing arrangements with third parties for any of our product candidates that obtain marketing approval.

We also plan to build a marketing and sales management organization to create and implement marketing strategies for any products that we market through our own sales organization and to oversee and support our sales force. The responsibilities of the marketing organization would include developing educational initiatives with respect to approved products and establishing relationships with researchers and practitioners in relevant fields of medicine.

We seek to protect the intellectual property and proprietary technology that we consider important to our business, including by pursuing patent applications that cover our product candidates and methods of using the same, as well as any other relevant inventions and improvements that are considered commercially important to the development of our business. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our proprietary and intellectual property position. Our commercial success depends, in part, on our ability to obtain, maintain, enforce and protect our intellectual property and other proprietary rights for the technology, inventions and improvements we consider important to our business, and to defend any patents we may own or in-license in the future, prevent others from infringing any patents we may own or in-license in the future, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets, and operate without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the valid and enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties.

As with other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, our ability to maintain and solidify our proprietary and intellectual property position for our product candidates and technologies will depend on our success in obtaining effective patent claims and enforcing those claims if granted. However, our pending patent applications, and any patent applications that we may in the future file or license from third parties, may not result in the issuance of patents and any issued patents we may obtain do not guarantee us the right to practice our technology in relation to the commercialization of our products. We also cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in any patents we may own or in-license in the future. Any issued patents that we own, or may own or in-license in the future may be challenged, invalidated, circumvented or have the scope of their claims narrowed. For example, we cannot be certain of the priority of inventions covered by pending third-party patent applications. If third parties prepare and file patent applications in the United States that also claim technology or therapeutics to which we have rights, we may have to participate in interference proceedings in the USPTO to determine priority of invention, which could result in substantial costs to us, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us, which is highly unpredictable. In addition, because of the extensive time required for clinical development and regulatory review of a product candidate we may develop, it is possible that, before any of our product candidates can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby limiting the protection such patent would afford the respective product and any competitive advantage such patent may provide.

The term of individual patents depends upon the date of filing of the patent application, the date of patent issuance and the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest filing date of a non-provisional patent application. In the United States, a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier filed patent. The term of a patent claiming a new drug product may also be eligible for a limited patent term extension when FDA approval is granted, provided statutory and regulatory requirements are met. The restoration period granted on a patent covering a product is typically one-half the time between the effective date of a clinical investigation involving human beings is begun and the submission date of an application, plus the time between the submission date of an application and the ultimate approval date. The restoration period cannot be longer than five years and the total patent term, including the restoration period, must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension, and only those claims covering the approved product, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Additionally, the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The United States Patent and Trademark Office reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA. In the future, if our product candidates receive approval by the FDA, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on any issued patents covering those products, depending upon the length of the clinical studies for each product and other factors. There can be no assurance that our pending patent applications will issue or that we will benefit from any patent term extension or favorable adjustments to the terms of any patents we may own or in-license in the future. In addition, the actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a product-by-product basis, from country-to-country, and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular

country and the validity and enforceability of the patent. Patent term may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our products for an adequate amount of time.

As of March 1, 2022, we own 20 U.S. provisional patent applications, four pending U.S. patent applications, and one issued U.S. patent. We also own eight Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, patent applications and 27 foreign patent applications. Any U.S. or foreign patent issuing from these patent applications would be scheduled to expire in 2039 to 2042, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustment or patent term extension, and assuming that conversions are timely made based upon U.S. provisional patent applications, that national phase entries are timely made based upon the pending PCT applications, and the payment of all applicable maintenance or annuity fees.

As of March 1, 2022, we own six U.S. provisional patent applications, one U.S. patent application, and one PCT patent application, and 10 foreign patent applications that cover our glioblastoma program, including the composition of matter for BDTX-1535, polymorphs of BDTX-1535, as well as methods of using and making BDTX-1535. Any U.S. or foreign patent issued from these pending applications would be scheduled to expire between 2040 and 2042, assuming that conversions are timely made based upon U.S. provisional patent applications, that national phase entries are timely made based upon the pending PCT applications, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustment or patent term extension.

As of March 1, 2022, we own three U.S. provisional patent applications, one pending U.S. patent application, one U.S. patent, and three PCT patent applications, and 14 foreign patent applications that cover our tumor agnostic program, including the composition of matter for BDTX-189, polymorphs of BDTX-189, as well as methods of using and making BDTX-189. Any U.S. or foreign patent issued from these pending applications would be scheduled to expire between 2039 and 2042, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustment or patent term extension, and assuming national phase entries are timely made based upon the pending PCT application and payment of all applicable maintenance or annuity fees.

As of March 1, 2022, we own two U.S. provisional patent applications and one PCT patent application that cover our BRAF program, which is directed to the composition of matter for the compounds of the program, analogs thereof, as well as methods of using and making these compounds. Any U.S. or foreign patent issued from these pending applications would be scheduled to expire in 2042, assuming that conversions are timely made based upon U.S. provisional patent applications, that national phase entries are timely made based upon the pending PCT applications, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustment or patent term extension.

As of March 1, 2022, we own two U.S. provisional patent applications and one PCT patent application that cover our FGFR program, which is directed to the composition of matter for the compounds of the program, analogs thereof, as well as methods of using and making these compounds. Any U.S. or foreign patent issued from these pending application would be scheduled to expire in 2042, assuming that conversions are timely made based upon U.S. provisional patent applications, that national phase entries are timely made based upon the pending PCT applications, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustment or patent term extension.

As of March 1, 2022, we own one U.S. patent application that covers our MAP drug discovery engine and the use thereof in developing and applying therapeutics. Any U.S. patent issued from this U.S. patent application would be scheduled to expire in 2040, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustment or patent term extension.

Prosecution is a lengthy process, during which the scope of the claims initially submitted for examination by the USPTO are often significantly narrowed by the time they issue, if they issue at all. Any of our pending PCT patent applications are not eligible to become issued patents until, among other things, we file national stage patent applications within 30 months in the countries in which we seek patent protection. If we do not timely file any national stage patent applications, we may lose our priority date with respect to our PCT patent applications and any patent protection on the inventions disclosed in such PCT patent applications. Our provisional patent applications may never result in issued patents and are not eligible to become issued patents until, among other things, we file a non-provisional patent application within 12 months of filing the related provisional patent application. If we do not timely file non-provisional patent applications, we may lose our priority date with respect to our provisional patent applications and any patent protection on the inventions disclosed in our provisional patent applications. While we intend to timely file non-provisional and national stage patent applications relating to our provisional and PCT patent applications, we cannot predict whether any of our future patent applications for BDTX-1535, BDTX-189 or any of our other product candidates or technology will result in the issuance of patents that effectively protect BDTX-1535, BDTX-189 or our other product candidates or technology. If we do not successfully obtain patent protection, or, even if we do obtain patent protection, if the scope of the patent protection we or our potential licensors obtain with respect to BDTX-1535, BDTX-189 or our other product candidates or technology is not sufficiently broad, we will be unable to prevent others from using our technology or from developing or commercializing technology and products similar or identical to ours or other competing products and technologies. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, please see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to our Intellectual Property.”

In addition to patent applications, we rely on unpatented trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. However, trade secrets and confidential know-how are difficult to protect. In particular, we anticipate that with respect to the building of our compound library, our trade secrets and know-how will over time be disseminated within the industry through independent development and public presentations describing the methodology. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, by executing confidentiality agreements with our collaborators and scientific advisors and non-competition, non-solicitation, confidentiality and invention assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. We have also executed agreements requiring assignment of inventions with selected consultants, scientific advisors and collaborators. The confidentiality agreements we enter into are designed to protect our proprietary information and the agreements or clauses requiring assignment of inventions to us are designed to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through our relationship with the respective counterparty. We cannot guarantee that we will have executed such agreements with all applicable employees and contractors, or that these agreements will afford us adequate protection of our intellectual property and proprietary information rights. In addition, our trade secrets and/or confidential know-how may become known or be independently developed by a third party, or misused by any collaborator to whom we disclose such information. These agreements may also be breached, and we may not have an adequate remedy for any such breach. Despite any measures taken to protect our intellectual property, unauthorized parties may attempt to copy aspects of our products or to obtain or use information that we regard as proprietary. Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information, third parties may independently develop the same or similar proprietary information or may otherwise gain access to our proprietary information. As a result, we may be unable to meaningfully protect our trade secrets and proprietary information. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, please see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to our Intellectual Property.”

The FDA and other regulatory authorities at federal, state and local levels, as well as in foreign countries, including the European Union, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, import, export, safety, effectiveness, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, record keeping, approval, advertising, promotion, marketing, post-approval monitoring and post-approval reporting of drugs. We, along with our vendors, contract research organizations and contract manufacturers, will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical, manufacturing and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval of our product candidates. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals of drugs and ensuring subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

In the United States, where we are initially focusing our drug development, the FDA regulates drug products under the U.S. Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), its implementing regulations and other laws. Our product candidates are early-stage and none of our product candidates has been approved by the FDA for marketing in the United States. If we fail to comply with applicable FDA or other requirements at any time with respect to product development, clinical testing, approval or any other legal requirements relating to product manufacture, processing, handling, storage, quality control, safety, marketing, advertising, promotion, packaging, labeling, export, import, distribution, or sale, we may become subject to administrative or judicial sanctions or other legal consequences. These sanctions or consequences could include, among other things, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, issuance of clinical holds for ongoing studies, suspension or revocation of approved applications, warning or untitled letters, product withdrawals or recalls, product seizures, relabeling or repackaging, total or partial suspensions of manufacturing or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties or criminal prosecution brought by the FDA and the U.S. Department of Justice or other governmental entities.

The process required by the FDA before our product candidates are approved as drugs for therapeutic indications and may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

The testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for our product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirements that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the parameters and criteria to be used in monitoring safety and evaluating effectiveness. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB for each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted to ensure that the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable related to the anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative, and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. The FDA, the IRB, or the sponsor may suspend or discontinue a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. There also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trials to public registries. Information about clinical trials, including clinical trials results, must be submitted within specific timeframes for publication on the www.clinicaltrials.gov website.

While we plan to conduct any international clinical trials under our INDs we obtain with the FDA in the future, a sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside of the United States may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of an NDA. The FDA will accept a well-designed and well-conducted foreign clinical study not conducted under an IND if the study was conducted in accordance with GCP requirements, and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary.

Clinical trials to evaluate therapeutic indications to support NDAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap.

In August 2018, the FDA released a draft guidance entitled “Expansion Cohorts: Use in First-In-Human Clinical Trials to Expedite Development of Oncology Drugs and Biologics,” which outlines how drug developers can utilize an adaptive trial design commonly referred to as a seamless trial design in early stages of oncology drug development (i.e., the first-in-human clinical trial) to compress the traditional three phases of trials into one continuous trial called an expansion cohort trial. Information to support the design of individual expansion cohorts are included in IND applications and assessed by FDA. Expansion cohort trials can potentially bring efficiency to drug development and reduce developmental costs and time.

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and are commonly intended to generate additional safety data regarding use of the product in a clinical setting. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the product candidate and finalize a process for manufacturing the drug product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and manufacturers must develop, among other things, methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. An NDA is a request for approval to market a new drug for one or more specified indications and must contain proof of the drug’s safety and efficacy. The marketing application may include both negative and ambiguous results of preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as positive findings. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product’s use or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of the FDA. FDA approval of an NDA must be obtained before a drug may be marketed in the United States.

The FDA reviews all submitted NDAs before it accepts them for filing, and may request additional information rather than accepting the NDA for filing. The FDA must make a decision on accepting an NDA for filing within 60 days of receipt, and such decision could include a refusal to file by the FDA. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the NDA. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether the drug is safe and effective and whether the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packaged or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, quality and purity. Under the goals and polices agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, the FDA targets ten months, from the filing date, in which to complete its initial review of a new molecular entity NDA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of a new molecular entity NDA for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard or priority NDAs, and the review process is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

Further, under PDUFA, as amended, each NDA must be accompanied by a user fee. FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

The FDA also may require submission of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, plan to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks. The REMS plan could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans, and/or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, or other risk-minimization tools.

The FDA may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, which reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the Sponsor product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP and other requirements and the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA.

After evaluating the NDA and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue an approval letter, or, in some cases, a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally contains a statement of specific conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the NDA and may require additional clinical or preclinical testing in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If and when those conditions have been met to the FDA’s satisfaction, the FDA will typically issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications.

Even if the FDA approves a product, depending on the specific risk(s) to be addressed it may limit the approved indications for use of the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a drug’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing studies or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes, and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or if it affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States, there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product available in the United States for the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process, though companies developing orphan products are eligible for certain incentives, including tax credits for qualified clinical testing and waiver of application fees.

If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a seven-year period of marketing exclusivity during which the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same therapeutic agent for the same indication, except in limited circumstances, such as a subsequent product’s showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity or where the original applicant cannot produce sufficient quantities of product. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different therapeutic agents for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same therapeutic agent for a different indication than that for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Orphan product exclusivity could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval for the same therapeutic agent for the same indication before we do, unless we are able to demonstrate that our product is clinically superior. If an orphan designated product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan exclusivity. Further, orphan drug exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or the manufacturer of the approved product is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

Under the FD&C Act, the FDA incentivizes the development of drugs that meet the definition of a “rare pediatric disease,” defined to mean a serious or life-threatening disease in which the serious of life-threatening manifestations primarily affect individuals aged from birth to 18 years and the disease affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or affects more than 200,000 in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making in the United States a drug for such disease or condition will be received from sales in the United States of such drug. The sponsor of a product candidate for a rare pediatric disease may be eligible for a voucher that can be used to obtain a priority review for a subsequent human drug application after the date of approval of the rare pediatric disease drug product, referred to as a priority review voucher, or PRV. A sponsor may request rare pediatric disease designation from the FDA prior to the submission of its NDA. A rare pediatric disease designation does not guarantee that a sponsor will receive a PRV upon approval of its NDA. Moreover, a sponsor who chooses not to submit a rare pediatric disease designation request may nonetheless receive a PRV upon approval of their marketing application if they request such a voucher in their original marketing application and meet all of the eligibility criteria. If a PRV is received, it may be sold or transferred an unlimited number of times. Congress has extended the PRV program through September 30, 2024, with potential for PRVs to be granted through September 30, 2026.

The FDA maintains several programs intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new drugs to address unmet medical needs in the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. These programs include Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, Priority Review and Accelerated Approval, and the purpose of these programs is to either expedite the development or review of important new drugs to get them to patients earlier than under standard FDA development and review procedures.

A new drug is eligible for Fast Track designation if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. Fast Track designation provides increased opportunities for sponsor interactions with the FDA during preclinical and clinical development, in addition to the potential for rolling review once a marketing application is filed, meaning that the agency may review portions of the marketing application before the sponsor submits the complete application, as well as Priority Review, discussed below. In addition, a new drug may be eligible for Breakthrough Therapy designation if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Breakthrough Therapy designation provides all the features of Fast Track designation in addition to intensive guidance on an efficient drug development program beginning as early as Phase 1, and FDA organizational commitment to expedited development, including involvement of senior managers and experienced review staff in a cross-disciplinary review, where appropriate.

Any product submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with Fast Track or Breakthrough Therapy designation, may also be eligible for additional FDA programs intended to expedite the review and approval process, including Priority Review designation and accelerated approval. A product is eligible for Priority Review if it has the potential to provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a serious disease or condition. Under priority review, the FDA must review an application in six months compared to ten months for a standard review. Additionally, products are eligible for accelerated approval if they can be shown to have an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or an effect on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality which is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments.

Accelerated approval is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct additional post-approval studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. The FDA may withdraw approval of a drug or indication approved under accelerated approval if, for example, the confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product. In addition, unless otherwise informed by the FDA, the FDA currently requires, as a condition for accelerated approval, that all advertising and promotional materials that are intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days following marketing approval be submitted to the agency for review during the pre-approval review period, and that after 120 days following marketing approval, all advertising and promotional materials must be submitted at least 30 days prior to the intended time of initial dissemination or publication.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or the time period for FDA review or approval may not be shortened. Furthermore, Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, Priority Review and Accelerated Approval do not change the scientific or medical standards for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval but may expedite the development or review process.

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, certain NDAs and certain supplements to an NDA must contain data to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of pediatric data or full or partial waivers. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, amended the FD&C Act to require that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan, or PSP, within 60 days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation of the Phase 3 or Phase 2/3 study. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The FDA and the sponsor must reach an agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from preclinical studies, early phase clinical trials and/or other clinical development programs.

A drug can also obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study.

Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting products for unapproved uses or patient populations (known as “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability, including investigation by federal and state authorities. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use or first publication. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement, which may require the development of additional data or preclinical studies and clinical trials.

The FDA may impose a number of post-approval requirements as a condition of approval of an NDA. For example, the FDA may require post-market testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization.

In addition, drug manufacturers and their subcontractors involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMP, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our contract manufacturers. Manufacturers and other parties involved in the drug supply chain for prescription drug products must also comply with product tracking and tracing requirements and for notifying the FDA of counterfeit, diverted, stolen and intentionally adulterated products or products that are otherwise unfit for distribution in the United States. Failure to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements can subject a manufacturer to possible legal or regulatory action, such as warning letters, suspension of manufacturing, product seizures, injunctions, civil penalties or criminal prosecution. There is also a continuing, annual prescription drug product program user fee.

Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, requirements for post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks, or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

We believe that the success of certain of our product candidates may depend, in part, on the development and commercialization of a companion diagnostic. Companion diagnostics identify patients who are most likely to benefit from a particular therapeutic product; identify patients likely to be at increased risk for serious side effects as a result of treatment with a particular therapeutic product; or monitor response to treatment with a particular therapeutic product for the purpose of adjusting treatment to achieve improved safety or effectiveness. Companion diagnostics are regulated as medical devices by the FDA. In the United States, the FD&C Act and its implementing regulations, and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, medical device design and development, preclinical and clinical testing, premarket clearance or approval, registration and listing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, advertising and promotion, sales and distribution, export and import, and post-market surveillance. Unless an exemption or FDA exercise of enforcement discretion applies, diagnostic tests generally require marketing clearance or approval from the FDA prior to commercialization. The two primary types of FDA marketing authorization applicable to a medical device are clearance of a premarket notification, or 510(k), application, and approval of a premarket approval, or PMA, application.

To obtain 510(k) clearance for a medical device, or for certain modifications to devices that have received 510(k) clearance, a manufacturer must submit a premarket notification demonstrating that the proposed device is substantially equivalent to a previously cleared 510(k) device or to a preamendment device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or a predicate device, for which the FDA has not yet called for the submission of a PMA. In making a determination that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device, the FDA compares the proposed device to the predicate device or predicate devices and assesses whether the subject device is comparable to the predicate device or predicate devices with respect to intended use, technology, design and other features which could affect safety and effectiveness. If the FDA determines that the subject device is substantially equivalent to the predicate device or predicate devices, the subject device may be cleared for marketing. The 510(k) premarket notification pathway generally takes from three to twelve months from the date the application is completed, but can take significantly longer.

PMA applications must be supported by valid scientific evidence, which typically requires extensive data, including technical, preclinical, clinical and manufacturing data, to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and effectiveness of the device. For diagnostic tests, a PMA application typically includes data regarding analytical and clinical validation studies. As part of its review of the PMA, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities to ensure compliance with the Quality System Regulation, or QSR, which requires manufacturers to follow design, testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance procedures. The FDA’s review of an initial PMA application is required by statute to take between six to ten months, although the process typically takes longer, and may require several years to complete. If the FDA evaluations of both the PMA application and the manufacturing facilities are favorable, the FDA will either issue an approval letter or an approvable letter, which usually contains a number of conditions that must be met in order to secure the final approval of the PMA. If the FDA’s evaluation of the PMA or manufacturing facilities is not favorable, the FDA will deny the approval of the PMA or issue a not approvable letter. A not approvable letter will outline the deficiencies in the application and, where practical, will identify what is necessary to make the PMA approvable. Once granted, PMA approval may be withdrawn by the FDA if compliance with post-approval requirements, conditions of approval or other regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing.

On July 31, 2014, the FDA issued a final guidance document addressing the development and approval process for “In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices.” According to the guidance document, for novel therapeutic products that depend on the use of a diagnostic test and where the diagnostic device could be essential for the safe and effective use of the corresponding therapeutic product, the premarket application for the companion diagnostic device should be developed and approved or cleared contemporaneously with the therapeutic, although the FDA recognizes that there may be cases when contemporaneous development may not be possible. However, in cases where a drug cannot be used safely or effectively without the companion diagnostic, the FDA’s guidance indicates it will generally not approve the drug without the approval or clearance of the diagnostic device. The FDA also issued a draft guidance in July 2016 setting forth the principles for co-development of an in vitro companion diagnostic device with a therapeutic product. The draft guidance describes principles to guide the development and contemporaneous marketing authorization for the therapeutic product and its corresponding in vitro companion diagnostic.

Once cleared or approved, the companion diagnostic device must adhere to post-marketing requirements including the requirements of the FDA’s quality system regulation, adverse event reporting, recalls and corrections along with product marketing requirements and limitations. Like drug makers, companion diagnostic makers are subject to unannounced FDA inspections at any time during which the FDA will conduct an audit of the product(s) and the company’s facilities for compliance with its authorities.

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities of product candidates following product approval, where applicable, or commercialization are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the United States in addition to the FDA, which may include the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments and governmental agencies.

Healthcare providers, physicians, and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Our business operations and any current or future arrangements with third-party payors, healthcare providers and physicians may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we develop, market, sell and distribute any drugs for which we obtain marketing approval. In the United States, these laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, false claims, physician transparency, and patient data privacy and security laws and regulations, including but not limited to those described below.

Additionally, we are subject to state and foreign equivalents of each of the healthcare laws and regulations described above, among others, some of which may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of the payor. Many U.S. states have adopted laws similar to the AKS and FCA, and may apply to our business practices, including, but not limited to, research, distribution, sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental payors, including private insurers. In addition, some states have passed laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the April 2003 Office of Inspector General Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and/or the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America’s Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals. Several states also impose other marketing restrictions or require pharmaceutical companies to make marketing or price disclosures to the state and require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives. State and foreign laws, including for example the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which became effective May 2018 also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. There are ambiguities as to what is required to comply with these state requirements and if we fail to comply with an applicable state law requirement we could be subject to penalties. Finally, there are state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is prohibited in the EU. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians is also governed by the national anti-bribery laws of EU Member States, such as the UK Bribery Act 2010. Violation of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment.

Payments made to physicians in certain EU Member States must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual EU Member States. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes or professional codes of conduct applicable in the EU Member States. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

The scope and enforcement of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. Ensuring that our internal operations and future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental laws and regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, the exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, reputational harm, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws. Further, defending against any such actions can be costly and time-consuming, and may require significant financial and personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to not be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs and individual imprisonment. If any of the above occur, our ability to operate our business and our results of operations could be adversely affected.

In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Thus, even if a product candidate is approved, sales of the product will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations, provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, the product. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by the CMS, an agency within HHS. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. No uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Additionally, companies may also need to provide discounts to purchasers, private health plans or government healthcare programs. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician utilization once the product is approved and have a material adverse effect on sales, our operations and financial condition. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor.

The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments, and the prices of products have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products. Coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. Further, due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, millions of individuals have lost or will be losing employer-based insurance coverage, which may adversely affect our ability to commercialize our products.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and likely will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system directed at broadening the availability of healthcare, improving the quality of healthcare, and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. For example, in March 2010, the United States Congress enacted the ACA, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for products under government health care programs. The ACA includes provisions of importance to our potential product candidates that:

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, Congressional and executive challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, President Biden issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through August 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is unclear how other healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration or other efforts, if any, to challenge, repeal or replace the ACA will impact our business. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted:

Additionally, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to drug pricing practices. Specifically, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, and review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs. At the federal level, President Biden signed an Executive Order on July 9, 2021 affirming the administration’s policy to (i) support legislative reforms that would lower the prices of prescription drug and biologics, including by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, by imposing inflation caps, and, by supporting the development and market entry of lower-cost generic drugs and biosimilars; and (ii) support the enactment of a public health insurance option. Among other things, the Executive Order also directs HHS to provide a report on actions to combat excessive pricing of prescription drugs, enhance the domestic drug supply chain, reduce the price that the Federal government pays for drugs, and address price gouging in the industry; and directs the FDA to work

with states and Indian Tribes that propose to develop section 804 Importation Programs in accordance with the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, and the FDA’s implementing regulations. FDA released such implementing regulations on September 24, 2020, which went into effect on November 30, 2020, providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. On September 25, 2020, CMS stated drugs imported by states under this rule will not be eligible for federal rebates under Section 1927 of the Social Security Act and manufacturers would not report these drugs for “best price” or Average Manufacturer Price purposes. Since these drugs are not considered covered outpatient drugs, CMS further stated it will not publish a National Average Drug Acquisition Cost for these drugs. If implemented, importation of drugs from Canada may materially and adversely affect the price we receive for any of our product candidates. Further, on November 20, 2020 CMS issued an Interim Final Rule implementing the Most Favored Nation, or MFN, Model under which Medicare Part B reimbursement rates would have been be calculated for certain drugs and biologicals based on the lowest price drug manufacturers receive in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries with a similar gross domestic product per capita. However, on December 29, 2021 CMS rescinded the Most Favored Nations rule. Additionally, on November 30, 2020, HHS published a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. Pursuant to court order, the removal and addition of the aforementioned safe harbors were delayed and recent legislation imposed a moratorium on implementation of the rule until January 1, 2026. Although a number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the Biden administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, both the Biden administration and Congress have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.

Outside the United States, ensuring coverage and adequate payment for a product also involves challenges. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to government control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with government authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory approval for a product and may require a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of a product to other available therapies. The conduct of such a clinical trial could be expensive and result in delays in commercialization.

Some of our manufacturers are located outside of the United States. There is currently significant uncertainty about the future relationship between the U.S. and various other countries, including China, with respect to trade policies, treaties, government regulations and tariffs. Increased tariffs could potentially disrupt our existing supply chains and impose additional costs on our business. Additionally, it is possible further tariffs may be imposed that could affect imports of active pharmaceutical ingredients, or APIs, used in our product candidates, or our business may be adversely impacted by retaliatory trade measures taken by China or other countries, including restricted access to such raw materials used in our product candidates. Given the unpredictable regulatory environment in China and the U.S. and uncertainty regarding how the U.S. or foreign governments will act with respect to tariffs, international trade agreements and policies, further governmental action related to tariffs, additional taxes, regulatory changes or other retaliatory trade measures in the future could occur with a corresponding detrimental impact on our business and financial condition.

In the EU, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the EU provides options for its Member States to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. EU Member States may approve a specific price for a product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other Member States allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Recently, many countries in the EU have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures, especially in

light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the EU. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU Member States, and parallel trade, i.e., arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any products, if approved in those countries.

If any products that we may develop are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. Products must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, labeling, packaging, distribution, sales, promotion and other activities also are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws, among other requirements to we may be subject.

The distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products.

The failure to comply with any of these laws or regulatory requirements subjects firms to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines or other penalties, injunctions, exclusion from federal healthcare programs, requests for recall, seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals, relabeling or repackaging, or refusal to allow a firm to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. Any claim or action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. Prohibitions or restrictions on marketing, sales or withdrawal of future products marketed by us could materially affect our business in an adverse way.

Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling or packaging; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

We may be subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. From time to time and in the future, our operations may involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials, and may also produce hazardous waste products. Even if we contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and waste products, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from the use or disposal of our hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties for failure to comply with such laws and regulations.

We maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees, but this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. However, we do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. Current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. In addition, failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

To market any product outside of the United States, we would need to comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization or identification of an alternate regulatory pathway, manufacturing, commercial sales and distribution of our products. For instance, in the EU, medicinal products, are subject to extensive pre- and post-market regulation by regulatory authorities at both the EU and national levels.

Under the above described procedures, before granting the marketing authorization, the EMA or the competent authorities of the Member States of the EU make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.

Now that the United Kingdom (which comprises Great Britain and Northern Ireland) has left the European Union, Great Britain will no longer be covered by centralized marketing authorizations (under the Northern Ireland Protocol, centralized marketing authorizations will continue to be recognized in Northern Ireland). All medicinal products with a current centralized marketing authorization were automatically converted to Great Britain marketing authorizations on January 1, 2021. For a period of two years from January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, the UK medicines regulator, may rely on a decision taken by the European Commission on the approval of a new marketing authorization in the centralized procedure, in order to more quickly grant a new Great Britain marketing authorization. A separate application will, however, still be required. The MHRA also has the power to have regard to marketing authorizations approved in EU Member States through decentralized or mutual recognition procedures with a view to more quickly granting a marketing authorization in the United Kingdom or Great Britain.

In the EU, new products for therapeutic indications that are authorized for marketing (i.e., reference products) qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon marketing authorization. The data exclusivity period, if granted, prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from relying on the preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization in the EU for a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar product can be marketed in the EU until the expiration of the market exclusivity period. The ten-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with currently approved therapies. There is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EMA to be an innovative medicinal product, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. Even if a product is considered to be an innovative medicinal product so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company could nevertheless also market another version of the product if such company obtained a marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete, independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.

The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the EU are similar in principle to those in the United States. In the EU a medicinal product may be designated as orphan medicinal product if it meets the following criteria: (1) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) without the benefits derived from orphan status, it is unlikely that the marketing of the medicine would generate sufficient return in the EU to justify the necessary investment in its development; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU, or if such a method exists, the product would be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and are, upon grant of a marketing authorization, entitled to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication. During this ten-year orphan market exclusivity period, no MAA shall be accepted, and no marketing authorization shall be granted for a similar medicinal product. A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. An orphan product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity in the EU for pediatric studies. The ten-year market exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation, for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Otherwise, orphan medicine marketing exclusivity may be revoked only in very select cases, such as if (i) it is established that a similar medicinal product is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the authorized product; (ii) the marketing authorization holder of the authorized orphan product consents to a second orphan medicinal product application; or (iii) the marketing

authorization holder of the authorized orphan product cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product. Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an application for marketing approval. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

Since January 1, 2021, a separate process for orphan designation has applied in Great Britain. There is now no pre-marketing authorization orphan designation (as there is in the EU) in Great Britain and the application for orphan designation will be reviewed by the MHRA at the time of an MAA for a UK or Great Britain marketing authorization. The criteria for orphan designation are the same as in the EU, save that they apply to Great Britain only (e.g. there must be no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition concerned in Great Britain, as opposed to the EU, and the prevalence of the relevant condition must not be more than 5 in 10,000 in Great Britain). In May 2017, the EU adopted the Regulation (EU) 2017/746 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices, or IVDR, which will become applicable on 26 May 2022 and will repeal Directive 98/79/EC on in vitro diagnostic medical devices. Devices that comply with the requirements of the IVDR will be entitled to bear the CE conformity marking, indicating that the device conforms to the general safety and performance requirements of the IVDR, and, accordingly, can be commercially distributed throughout the EU (in-vitro diagnostic medical devices cannot be marketed in the EU without a CE Mark). The method of assessing conformity varies depending on the class of the product, but normally involves a third-party assessment by a “Notified Body”. This third-party assessment may consist of an audit of the manufacturer’s quality system and specific testing of the manufacturer’s product.

Similar to the United States, the various phases of non-clinical and clinical research in the EU are subject to significant regulatory controls.

In April 2014, the new Clinical Trials Regulation, (EU) No 536/2014 (Clinical Trials Regulation) was adopted, which replaced the Clinical Trials Directive 2011/20/EC on January 31, 2022. The Clinical Trials Regulation is directly applicable in all the EU Member States, meaning no national implementing legislation is required. The transitory provisions of the new Regulation offer sponsors the possibility to choose between the requirements of the previous Directive and the new Regulation if the request for authorization of a clinical trial is submitted in the year after the new Regulation became applicable. If a clinical trial continues for more than three years from the day on which the Clinical Trials Regulation became applicable the Clinical Trials Regulation will at that time begin to apply to the clinical trial. The new Clinical Trials Regulation aims to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trials in the EU. The main characteristics of the regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single-entry point, the Clinical Trials Information Systems, or “CTIS”; a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts. Part I is assessed by coordinated assessment of the competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted (Member States concerned), of the review of a Reference Member State. Part II is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned EU Member State. However, overall related timelines will be defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation.

The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area, or EEA, which consists of the EU Member States, plus Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland.

The collection and use of personal health data in the EEA, previously governed by the provisions of the Data Protection Directive, is now governed by the General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. While the Data Protection Directive did not apply to organizations based outside the EEA, the GDPR has expanded its reach to include any business, regardless of its location, that provides goods or services to residents in the EU. This expansion would incorporate any clinical trial activities in EU Members States. The GDPR imposes strict requirements on controllers and processors of personal data, including special protections for “sensitive information” which includes health and genetic information of data subjects residing in the EEA. GDPR grants individuals the opportunity to object to the processing of their personal information, allows them to request deletion of personal information in certain circumstances, and provides the individual with an express right to seek legal remedies

in the event the individual believes his or her rights have been violated. Further, the GDPR imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the EEA to the United States or other regions that have not been deemed to offer “adequate” privacy protections. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the EEA Member States, which may deviate slightly from the GDPR, may result in fines of up to 4% of global revenues, or €20 million, whichever is greater. As a result of the implementation of the GDPR, we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with the new data protection rules. In addition, further to the UK’s exit from the EU on January 31, 2020, the GDPR ceased to apply in the UK at the end of the transition period on December 31, 2020. However, as of January 1, 2021, the UK’s European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 incorporated the GDPR (as it existed on December 31, 2020 but subject to certain UK specific amendments) into UK law, referred to as the UK GDPR. The UK GDPR and the UK Data Protection Act 2018 set out the UK’s data protection regime, which is independent from but aligned to the EU’s data protection regime. Non-compliance with the UK GDPR may result in monetary penalties of up to £17.5 million or 4% of worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. Although the UK is regarded as a third country under the EU’s GDPR, the European Commission has now issued a decision recognizing the UK as providing adequate protection under the EU GDPR and, therefore, transfers of personal data originating in the EU to the UK remain unrestricted. Like the EU GDPR, the UK GDPR restricts personal data transfers outside the UK to countries not regarded by the UK as providing adequate protection. The UK government has confirmed that personal data transfers from the UK to the EEA remain free flowing.

There is significant uncertainty related to the manner in which data protection authorities will seek to enforce compliance with GDPR. For example, it is not clear if the authorities will conduct random audits of companies doing business in the EEA, or if the authorities will wait for complaints to be filed by individuals who claim their rights have been violated. Enforcement uncertainty and the costs associated with ensuring GDPR compliance are onerous and may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Should we utilize third party distributors, compliance with such foreign governmental regulations would generally be the responsibility of such distributors, who may be independent contractors over whom we have limited control.

On June 23, 2016, the electorate in the United Kingdom voted in favor of leaving the European Union (commonly referred to as “Brexit”). The United Kingdom formally left the European Union on January 31, 2020. There was an initial transitional period, during which European Union’s rules continued to apply in the United Kingdom, which ended on December 31, 2020. The United Kingdom and European Union have signed a European Union-United Kingdom Trade and Cooperation Agreement, or the TCA, which was provisionally applicable since January 1, 2021 and has been formally applicable since May 1, 2021. The TCA includes specific provisions concerning pharmaceuticals, which include the mutual recognition of GMP, inspections of manufacturing facilities for medicinal products and GMP documents issued, but does not foresee wholesale mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical regulations. At present, Great Britain has implemented EU legislation on the marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products through the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (as amended) (under the Northern Ireland Protocol, the EU regulatory framework will continue to apply in Northern Ireland). The regulatory regime in Great Britain therefore largely aligns with current EU regulations, however it is possible that these regimes will diverge in the future now that Great Britain’s regulatory system is independent from the EU and the TCA does not provide for mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical legislation.

In order to achieve the goals and expectations of our Company, it is crucial that we continue to attract and retain top talent. To facilitate talent attraction and retention, we strive to make Black Diamond a safe and rewarding workplace, with opportunities for our employees to grow and develop in their careers, supported by strong compensation, benefits and health and wellness programs, and by programs that build connections between our employees.

None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Black Diamond is committed to a culture of diversity, equity and inclusion. This commitment is reflected in our corporate goals and underpins our social, cultural, and philanthropic initiatives. We focus on diverse recruiting strategies and work collaboratively with external organizations to attract, retain and develop diverse talent by ensuring we have a culture of inclusivity for all.

In 2021, approximately 63% of our new hires came from underrepresented categories including women and racial or ethnic minorities. As of March 1, 2022, approximately 52% of the Company's workforce, and 47% of our employees in managerial roles, identified as female. As of March 1, 2022, approximately 25% of our workforce, and 21% of our employees in managerial roles, identified as racially or ethnically diverse.

The success of our business is fundamentally connected to the well-being of our employees. Accordingly, we are committed to their health, safety and wellness. We provide our employees and their families with access to a variety of innovative, flexible and convenient health and wellness programs, including benefits that provide protection and security so they can have peace of mind concerning events that may require time away from work or that impact their financial well-being; that support their physical and mental health by providing tools and resources to help them improve or maintain their health status and encourage engagement in healthy behaviors; and that offer choice where possible so they can customize their benefits to meet their needs and the needs of their families. In response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, we implemented significant changes that we determined were in the best interest of our employees, as well as the communities in which we operate, and which comply with government regulations. This includes having most of our non-laboratory employees work from home, while implementing additional safety measures for employees continuing critical on-site work.

We provide robust compensation and benefits programs to help meet the needs of our employees. In addition to salaries, these programs include potential annual discretionary bonuses, stock awards, a 401(k) Plan, healthcare and insurance benefits, health savings and flexible spending accounts, paid time off, family leave, and flexible work schedules, among others. In addition to our broad-based equity award programs, we have used targeted equity-based grants with vesting conditions to facilitate retention of personnel.

We lease a facility containing approximately 25,578 square feet of office space for our principal office, which is located at One Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142. The lease expires on August 31, 2028, subject to an option to extend the lease for five additional years. We also lease approximately 18,120 square feet of office and laboratory space at 430 East 29th Street, New York, New York 10016. The lease expires on June 30, 2032, subject to an option to extend the lease for five additional years.

We believe that our current facilities are adequate for our current needs and that suitable additional or substitute space at commercially reasonable terms will be available as needed to accommodate any future expansion of our operations.

From time to time, we may become involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business. As of the date of this Annual Report, we were not a party to, or aware of, any material legal matters or claims. In the future, we may become party to legal matters and claims in the ordinary course of business, the resolution of which we do not anticipate would have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

We were formed as an LLC in December 2014 and we converted to a corporation in September 2016 under the laws of the State of Delaware under the name ASET Therapeutics, Inc. On January 2, 2018, we changed our name to Black Diamond Therapeutics, Inc. Our principal executive offices are located at One Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142, and our telephone number is 617-252-0848. We have two subsidiaries, Black Diamond Therapeutics (Canada) Inc., which was incorporated in 2018, and Black Diamond Therapeutics Security Corporation, which was incorporated in 2019.

We are an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of: (i) the last day of the fiscal year (a) following the fifth anniversary of the completion of the initial public offering (“IPO”), (b) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.07 billion, or (c) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which means the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700.0 million as of the prior June 30th, and (ii) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year period.

The financial information required under this Item 1 is incorporated herein by reference to the section of this Annual Report titled “Part II—Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.” The company manages its operations as a single segment for the purposes of assessing performance and making operating decisions. The Company’s singular focus is the development of selective medicines for patients with genetically defined cancers driven by oncogenes activated by allosteric mutations. See Note 2 to our consolidated audited financial statements included in this Annual Report. For financial information regarding our business, see “Part II—Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” of this Annual Report and our consolidated audited financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report.

Our Internet address is www.blackdiamondtherapeutics.com. Our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, including exhibits, proxy and information statements and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a), 14, and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, are available through the “Investors & News” portion of our website free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Information on our website is not part of this Annual Report or any of our other securities filings unless specifically incorporated herein by reference. We have included our website address in this Annual Report solely as an inactive textual reference. Our filings with the SEC may be accessed through the SEC’s Interactive Data Electronic Applications system at http://www.sec.gov. All statements made in any of our securities filings, including all forward-looking statements or information, are made as of the date of the document in which the statement is included, and we do not assume or undertake any obligation to update any of those statements or documents unless we are required to do so by law.

We are very early in our development efforts. Most of our product candidates are still in preclinical development and have never been tested in human subjects. Our ability to generate product revenues, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful clinical development and eventual commercialization of BDTX-1535, BDTX-189 and one or more of our other product candidates. In addition, our drug development programs contemplate the development of companion diagnostics, which are assays or tests to identify an appropriate patient population. Companion diagnostics are subject to regulation as medical devices and must themselves be approved for marketing by the FDA or certain other foreign regulatory agencies before we may commercialize our product candidates. The success of our product candidates will depend on several factors, including the following:

There is no guarantee that the results obtained in current preclinical studies or our open-label clinical trial of BDTX-1535 or BDTX-189 will be sufficient to obtain regulatory approval or marketing authorization for such product candidates. Negative results in the development of our lead product candidates may also impact our ability to obtain regulatory approval for our other product candidates, either at all or within anticipated timeframes because, although other product candidates may target different indications, the underlying technology platform, manufacturing process and development process is the same for all of our product candidates. Accordingly, a failure in any one program may affect the ability to obtain regulatory approval to continue or conduct clinical programs for other product candidates. For example, although we believe based on our preclinical studies that the conformational change to the active site receptor is similar for all of the genetic mutations we are targeting and therefore the chemical structures of our lead product candidates will suffice to bind adequately to such receptor for all such mutations, this may not prove true in clinical testing for all or any of the targeted mutations. Moreover, anti-tumor activity may be different in each of the different tumor types we plan on evaluating in the clinical trial. Therefore, the tumor response may be low in patients with some cancers compared to others. This may result in discontinuation of development of a product candidate for patients with these tumor types and/or mutations due to insufficient clinical benefit while continuing development for a more limited population of patients more likely to benefit. As a consequence, we may have to negotiate with the FDA to reach agreement on defining the optimal patient population, study design and size in order to obtain regulatory approval, any of which may require significant additional resources and delay the timing of our clinical trials and ultimately the approval, if any, of any of our product candidates.

In addition, because we have limited financial and personnel resources and are placing significant focus on the development of our clinical-stage product candidates, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with other future product candidates that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and other future product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable future product candidates. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular future product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to those future product candidates through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such future product candidates.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical studies of our product candidates is critical to our success. The timing of completion of our clinical studies depends in part on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in testing our product candidates, and we may experience delays in our clinical trials if we encounter difficulties in enrollment. We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. In particular, because we are focused on patients with specific genetic mutations, our ability to enroll eligible patients may be limited or may result in slower enrollment than we anticipate. For example, for both BDTX-1535 and BDTX-189, we cannot be certain how many patients will have each of the genetic mutations that these product candidates are designed to target or that the number of patients enrolled for each mutation will suffice for regulatory approval and inclusion of each such mutation in the approved label. In addition, some of our competitors have ongoing clinical trials for product candidates that treat the same indications as our product candidates, and patients who would otherwise be eligible for our clinical trials may instead enroll in clinical trials of our competitors’ product candidates.

In addition to the potentially small populations, the eligibility criteria of our planned clinical trials will further limit the pool of available study participants as we will require that patients have specific characteristics that we can measure to assure their disease is either severe enough or not too advanced to include them in a study. Additionally, the process of finding and diagnosing patients may prove costly. We also may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients to complete our clinical studies because of the perceived risks and benefits of the product candidate under study, the availability and efficacy of competing therapies and clinical trials, the proximity and availability of clinical study sites for prospective patients, the availability of genetic sequencing information for patient tumors so that we can identify patients with the targeted genetic mutations, and the patient referral practices of physicians. If patients are unwilling to participate in our studies for any reason, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting studies and obtaining regulatory approval of potential products may be delayed.

We intend to engage third parties to develop companion diagnostics for use in our clinical trials, but such third parties may not be successful in developing such companion diagnostics, furthering the difficulty in identifying patients with the targeted genetic mutations for our clinical trials. Further, if we are unable to include patients with the targeted genetic mutations, this could compromise our ability to seek participation in FDA’s expedited review and development programs, including Breakthrough Therapy Designation and Fast Track Designation, or otherwise seek to accelerate clinical development and regulatory timelines.

The enrollment of patients further depends on many factors, including:

In addition, our clinical trials will compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to us because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our clinical trials may instead opt to enroll in a clinical trial being conducted by one of our competitors. Since the number of qualified clinical investigators is limited, we expect to conduct some of our clinical trials at the same clinical trial sites that some of our competitors use, which will reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials at such clinical trial sites. Moreover, because our product candidates represent a departure from more commonly used methods for cancer treatment and because most of our product candidates have not been tested in humans before, potential patients and their doctors may be inclined to use conventional therapies, such as chemotherapy, rather than enroll patients in any future clinical trial. Additionally, because our clinical trials are in patients with relapsed/refractory cancer, the patients are typically in the late stages of their disease and may experience disease progression independent from our product candidates, making them unevaluable for purposes of the clinical trial and requiring additional patient enrollment.

If we experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue from any of these product candidates could be delayed or prevented.

We have limited experience as a company in conducting clinical trials. In part because of this limited experience, we cannot be certain that our ongoing preclinical studies will be completed on time or if the planned preclinical studies and clinical trials will begin or be completed on time, if at all. Large-scale clinical trials would require significant additional financial and management resources and reliance on third-party clinical investigators, contract research organizations, or CROs, and consultants. Relying on third-party clinical investigators, CROs and consultants may force us to encounter delays that are outside of our control. We may be unable to identify and contract with sufficient investigators, CROs and consultants on a timely basis or at all. For BDTX-1535 and BDTX-189, we have entered into master services agreements with CROs to conduct our first-in-human clinical trials. There can be no assurance that we will be able to negotiate and enter into any additional master services agreement with other CROs, as necessary, on terms that are acceptable to us on a timely basis or at all.

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of our product candidates, including BDTX-1535 and BDTX-189, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that our product candidates are both safe and effective for use in each target indication. Preclinical and clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the preclinical study and clinical trial processes, and, because our product candidates are in an early stage of development, there is a high risk of failure and we may never succeed in developing marketable products.

The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Although product candidates may demonstrate promising results in preclinical studies and early clinical trials, they may not prove to be effective in subsequent clinical trials. For example, testing on animals occurs under different conditions than testing in humans and therefore, the results of animal studies may not accurately predict human experience. There is typically an extremely high rate of attrition from the failure of product candidates proceeding through preclinical studies and clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety, potency, purity and efficacy profile despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. Likewise, early, smaller-scale clinical trials may not be predictive of eventual safety or effectiveness in large-scale pivotal clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of potency or efficacy, insufficient durability of potency or efficacy or unacceptable safety issues, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Most product candidates that commence preclinical studies and clinical trials are never approved as products.

Any preclinical studies or clinical trials that we may conduct may not demonstrate the safety, potency, purity and efficacy necessary to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates. If the results of our ongoing or future preclinical studies and clinical trials are inconclusive with respect to the safety, potency, purity and efficacy of our product candidates, if we do not meet the clinical endpoints with statistical and clinically meaningful significance, or if there are safety concerns associated with our product candidates, we may be prevented or delayed in obtaining marketing approval for such product candidates. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety, potency, purity or efficacy results between different preclinical studies and clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, changes in and adherence to the clinical trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. As is the case with all oncology drugs, it is likely that there may be side effects associated with their use. Results of our trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of these or other side effects. In such an event, our trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Drug-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Further, our product candidates could cause undesirable side effects in clinical trials related to on-target toxicity. For example, other EGFR inhibitors have experienced dose limiting toxicities due to rash in patients and, although we have designed our product candidates to be “wild-type” sparing to limit the risk of similar toxicities, clinical results may differ and patients may also experience similar or different toxicities that limit the dose and/or efficacy of our product candidates. If on-target toxicity is observed, or if our product candidates have characteristics that are unexpected, we may need to abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. Many compounds that initially showed promise in early stage testing for treating cancer have later been found to cause side effects that prevented further development of the compound.

We submitted an IND for BDTX-189 in November 2019, which was allowed by the FDA on December 13, 2019. Further, we submitted an IND for BDTX-1535 in December 2021, which was allowed by the FDA on January 6, 2022. However, we may not be able to file INDs for our other product candidates on the timelines we expect. For example, we may experience manufacturing delays or other delays with IND-enabling studies. Moreover, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing further clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate clinical trials. Additionally, even if such regulatory authorities agree with the design and implementation of the clinical trials set forth in an IND, we cannot guarantee that such regulatory authorities will not change their requirements in the future. These considerations also apply to new clinical trials we may submit as amendments to existing INDs or to a new IND. Any failure to file INDs on the timelines we expect or to obtain regulatory approvals for our trials may prevent us from completing our clinical trials or commercializing our products on a timely basis, if at all.

As one of the central elements of our business strategy and approach, we seek to screen and identify subsets of patients with a genetic alteration who may derive meaningful benefit from our development product candidates. To achieve this, our product development program is dependent on the development and commercialization of a companion diagnostic by us or by third party collaborators. Companion diagnostics are developed in conjunction with clinical programs for the associated product and are subject to regulation as medical devices. Each agency that approves a product candidate will independently need to approve the companion diagnostic before or concurrently with its approval of the product candidate, and before a product can be commercialized. The approval of a companion diagnostic as part of the product label will also limit the use of the product candidate to only those patients who express the specific genetic alteration it was developed to detect.

Companion diagnostics are subject to regulation by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities as medical devices and require separate clearance or approval prior to their commercialization. To date, the FDA has required premarket approval for nearly all companion diagnostics for cancer therapies. We and our third-party collaborators may encounter difficulties in developing and obtaining approval for these companion diagnostics. Any delay or failure by us or third- party collaborators to develop or obtain regulatory approval of a companion diagnostic could delay or prevent approval of our related product candidates.

The number of patients that we plan to dose in our initial clinical trials is small. The preliminary results of clinical trials with smaller sample sizes can be disproportionately influenced by various biases associated with the conduct of small clinical trials, such as the potential failure of the smaller sample size to accurately depict the features of the broader patient population, which limits the ability to generalize the results across a broader community, thus making

the clinical trial results less reliable than clinical trials with a larger number of patients. As a result, there may be less certainty that such product candidates would achieve a statistically significant effect in any future clinical trials. If we conduct any future clinical trials of BDTX-1535 or BDTX-189, we may not achieve a statistically significant result or the same level of statistical significance, if any, that we might have anticipated based on the results observed in our initial clinical trials.

Further, clinical trials by their nature utilize a sample of the potential patient population. With a limited number of patients and limited duration of exposure, rare and severe side effects of our product candidates may only be uncovered with a significantly larger number of patients exposed to the drug candidate. If our product candidates receive marketing approval and we or others identify undesirable side effects caused by such product candidates (or any other similar drugs) after such approval, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

We believe that any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidates and could substantially increase the costs of commercializing our product candidates, if approved, and significantly impact our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and generate revenues.

All of our lead product candidates are in early clinical development or in preclinical development and their risk of failure is high. It is impossible to predict when or if any of our product candidates will prove effective and safe in humans or will receive regulatory approval. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any drug candidate, we must complete preclinical studies and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. The outcome of preclinical development testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their product candidates. Our preclinical studies and future clinical trials may not be successful.

We cannot be certain that our preclinical study and clinical trial results will be sufficient to support regulatory approval of our product candidates. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Human clinical trials are expensive and difficult to design and implement, in part because they are subject to rigorous regulatory requirements. Failure or delay can occur at any time during the clinical trial process.

Additionally, some of the clinical trials we conduct may be open-label in study design and may be conducted at a limited number of clinical sites on a limited number of patients. An “open-label” clinical trial is one where both the patient and investigator know whether the patient is receiving the investigational product candidate or either an existing approved drug or placebo. Most typically, open-label clinical trials test only the investigational product candidate and sometimes may do so at different dose levels. Open-label clinical trials are subject to various limitations that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect as patients in open-label clinical trials are aware when they are receiving treatment. Open-label clinical trials may be subject to a “patient bias” where patients perceive their symptoms to have improved merely due to their awareness of receiving an experimental treatment. Moreover, patients selected for early clinical studies often include the most severe sufferers and their symptoms may have been bound to improve notwithstanding the new treatment. In addition, open-label clinical trials may be subject to an “investigator bias” where those assessing and reviewing the physiological outcomes of the clinical trials are aware of which patients have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. Given that our Phase 1 clinical trial of BDTX-1535 and our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of BDTX-189 include an open-label dosing design, the results from these clinical trials may not be predictive of future clinical trial results with these or other product candidates for which we conduct an open-label clinical trial when studied in a controlled environment with a placebo or active control.

We may experience delays in obtaining the FDA’s authorization to initiate clinical trials under future INDs, completing ongoing preclinical studies of our other product candidates, and initiating our planned preclinical studies and clinical trials. Additionally, we cannot be certain that preclinical studies or clinical trials for our product candidates will begin on time, not require redesign, enroll an adequate number of subjects on time, or be completed on schedule, if at all. For example, at a meeting with the FDA in March 2021, the FDA notified us that, because the then planned Phase 2 portion of our ongoing clinical trial of BDTX-189 would be potentially registrational and support a new drug application, we could only enroll up to 50 patients in Phase 2 before results of routine three-month good laboratory practice, or GLP, toxicology studies have been submitted and accepted by the FDA. This partial clinical hold on Phase 2 enrollment was not based on any safety findings from the MasterKey-01 trial and has no impact on completion of our Phase 1 study (including the currently enrolling safety expansion cohort). We have completed the three-month GLP toxicology studies and submitted the reports to the FDA who accepted the findings and lifted the partial clinical hold in January 2022.

Clinical trials can be delayed or terminated for a variety of reasons, including delays or failures related to:

We may experience numerous adverse or unforeseen events during, or as a result of, preclinical studies and clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize our product candidates, including:

If we are required or choose to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only moderately positive or if there are safety concerns, our business and results of operations may be adversely affected and we may incur significant additional costs.

We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such clinical trials are being conducted, by the Data Safety Monitoring Board, if any, for such clinical trial or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may suspend or terminate a clinical trial due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical trial protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from the product candidates, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial.

Moreover, principal investigators for our future clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the study. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority, as the case may be, and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of one or more of our product candidates.

If we experience delays in the completion, or termination, of any preclinical study or clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates may be harmed, and our ability to generate revenues from any of these product candidates will be delayed or not realized at all. In addition, any delays in completing our preclinical studies or clinical trials may increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. Any of these occurrences may significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates. If one or more of our product candidates generally prove to be ineffective, unsafe or commercially unviable, our entire pipeline and MAP drug discovery engine could have little, if any, value, which would have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may choose to conduct one or more clinical trials outside the United States, including in Europe. The acceptance of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States or another jurisdiction by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; and (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to GCP regulations. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including sufficient size of patient populations and statistical powering, must be met. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which could be costly and time-consuming, and which may result in product candidates that we may develop not receiving approval for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

The discovery and development of precision medicines for patients with genetically defined cancers is an emerging field, and the scientific discoveries that form the basis for our efforts to discover and develop product candidates are relatively new. The scientific evidence to support the feasibility of developing product candidates based on these discoveries is both preliminary and limited. Although we believe, based on our preclinical work, that the mutations targeted by our programs are oncogenic drivers, clinical results may not confirm this hypothesis or may only confirm it for certain mutations or certain tumor types. The patient populations for our product candidates are limited to those with specific target mutations and may not be completely defined but are substantially smaller than the general treated

cancer population, and we will need to screen and identify these patients with the targeted mutations. Successful identification of patients is dependent on several factors, including achieving certainty as to how specific genetic alterations respond to our product candidates and developing companion diagnostics to identify such genetic alterations. Furthermore, even if we are successful in identifying patients, we cannot be certain that the resulting patient populations for each mutation will be large enough to allow us to successfully obtain approval for each mutation type and commercialize our products and achieve profitability. In addition, even if our approach is successful in showing clinical benefit for tumors harboring the targeted mutations affecting the ErbB proteins EGFR and HER2, we may never successfully identify additional oncogenic mutations for other receptor tyrosine kinases. Therefore, we do not know if our approach of treating patients with genetically defined cancers will be successful, and if our approach is unsuccessful, our business will suffer.

In addition, we are pursuing a tumor-agnostic development strategy (i.e., pursuing approval based on a biomarker rather than a specific cancer indication). There is currently a limited number of approved tumor-agnostic therapies. We may not receive approval for a tumor-agnostic indication or may be delayed in receiving tumor-agnostic approval.

A key element of our strategy is to use and expand our MAP drug discovery engine to build a pipeline of product candidates and progress these product candidates through clinical development for the treatment of various cancers. Although our research and development efforts to date have resulted in our discovery and development of BDTX-1535 and BDTX-189, these clinical-stage candidates may not be safe or effective as cancer treatments, and we may not be able to develop any other product candidates. Our MAP drug discovery engine is evolving and may not reach a state at which building a pipeline of product candidates is possible. For example, we may not be successful in identifying additional genetic mutations which are oncogenic and which can be “basketed” into a group that is large enough to present a sufficient commercial opportunity or that is druggable with one chemical compound. Even if we are successful in building our pipeline of product candidates, the potential product candidates that we identify may not be suitable for clinical development or generate acceptable clinical data, including as a result of being shown to have unacceptable toxicity or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be products that will receive marketing approval from the FDA or other regulatory authorities or achieve market acceptance. If we do not successfully develop and commercialize product candidates, we will not be able to generate product revenue in the future, which likely would result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely affect our stock price.

Cancer therapies are sometimes characterized as first line, second line, or third line, and the FDA often approves new therapies initially only for a particular line of use. When cancer is detected early enough, first line therapy is sometimes adequate to cure the cancer or prolong life without a cure. Whenever first line therapy, usually chemotherapy, antibody drugs, tumor-targeted small molecules, hormone therapy, radiation therapy, surgery, or a combination of these, proves unsuccessful, second line therapy may be administered. Second line therapies often consist of more chemotherapy, radiation, antibody drugs, tumor-targeted small molecules, or a combination of these. Third line therapies can include chemotherapy, antibody drugs and small molecule tumor-targeted therapies, more invasive forms of surgery and new technologies. We expect to initially seek approval of our product candidates in most instances at least as a second or third line therapy, for use in patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic cancer. Subsequently, for those product candidates that prove to be sufficiently safe and beneficial, if any, we would expect to seek approval as a second line therapy and potentially as a first line therapy, but there is no guarantee that our product candidates, even if approved as a second or third or subsequent line of therapy, would be approved for an earlier line of therapy, and, prior to any such approvals, we may have to conduct additional clinical trials.

Our projections of both the number of people who have the cancers we are targeting, who may have their tumors genetically sequenced, as well as the subset of people with these cancers in a position to receive a particular line of therapy and who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on our beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations or market research, and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new therapies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of the cancers that we are targeting. Consequently, even if our product candidates are approved for a second or third line of therapy, the number of patients that may be eligible for treatment with our product candidates may turn out to be much lower than expected. In addition, we have not yet conducted market research to determine how treating physicians would expect to prescribe a product that is approved for multiple tumor types if there are different lines of approved therapies for each such tumor type.

Broad-based business or economic disruptions could adversely affect our ongoing or planned research and development activities. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is evolving, and to date has led to the implementation of various responses, including government-imposed quarantines, travel restrictions and other public health safety measures. The continued spread of COVID-19 or other global health matters, has impacted and may continue to impact our target patient populations as well as the hospitals and clinical sites in which we conduct any of our clinical trials, which could lead to delays in completing enrollment of our clinical trials. For instance, the COVID-19 outbreak may continue to impair our ability to recruit and retain patients and engage principal investigators and site staff who, as healthcare providers, may have heightened exposure to COVID-19 if an outbreak occurs in their geography or due to prioritization of hospital resources toward the outbreak and restrictions on travel. Furthermore, some patients may be unwilling to enroll in our trials or be unable to comply with clinical trial protocols if quarantines or travel restrictions impede patient movement or interrupt healthcare services. COVID-19 already has affected and may further negatively affect the operations of third party contract research organizations that we rely upon to carry out our discovery work, clinical trials or the operations of our third party manufacturers, which could result in delays or disruptions in the supply of our product candidates and the conduct of experiments and studies. Any negative impact COVID-19 has to patient enrollment or treatment or the timing and execution of our preclinical studies or clinical trials could cause costly delays to our development programs, which could adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approval for and to commercialize our product candidates, increase our operating expenses and have a material adverse effect on our business and financial results. COVID-19 has also caused, and may continue to cause for an extended period, volatility in the global financial markets and threatened a slowdown in the global economy, which would reduce our ability to access capital and could negatively affect our liquidity.

While our lab-based employees have returned to our labs with enhanced safety measures, our office-based employees continue to work primarily from home and we expect this to continue for an extended period. Furthermore, there has been a resurgence of COVID-19 cases, which could prompt a reinstatement of “shelter-in-place” orders and restrictions at the state and local levels impacting our reentry to the workplace and causing hospital and clinical sites to suspend our clinical trials or could deter patients from continuing to participate in our trials.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, three vaccines for COVID-19 have received Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA and two of those later received marketing approval. Additional vaccines may be authorized or approved in the future. The resultant demand for vaccines and potential for manufacturing facilities and materials to be commandeered under the Defense Production Act of 1950, or equivalent foreign legislation, may make it more difficult to obtain materials or manufacturing slots for the products needed for our clinical trials, which could lead to delays in these trials.

The global outbreak of COVID-19 continues to rapidly evolve. The extent to which COVID-19 impacts our business, results of operations and financial condition will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, such as the duration of the outbreak, new information that may emerge concerning the severity of COVID-19, new strains of the virus, including the Delta and Omicron variants and any future variants that may emerge, which may impact rates of infection and vaccination efforts, developments or perceptions regarding the safety of vaccines, or the extent and effectiveness of actions taken in the United States and other countries to contain COVID-19 or treat its impact, including vaccination campaigns and lockdown measures, among others. In addition, recurrences or additional waves of COVID-19 cases could cause other widespread or more severe impacts depending on where infection rates are highest. We cannot presently predict the scope and severity of any potential business shutdowns or disruptions, but if we or any of the third parties with whom we engage, including the suppliers, clinical trial sites, service providers, regulators and other third parties with whom we conduct business, were to experience prolonged business shutdowns or other business disruptions, our ability to conduct our business in the manner and on the timelines presently planned could be materially and negatively impacted.

The occurrence of unforeseen or catastrophic events, including extreme weather events and other natural disasters, man-made disasters, or the emergence of epidemics or pandemics, depending on their scale, may cause different degrees of damage to the national and local economies and could cause a disruption in our operations and have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Man-made disasters, pandemics, and other events connected with the regions in which we operate could have similar effects. If a natural disaster, health pandemic, or other event beyond our control occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our office and/or lab spaces, damaged critical infrastructure, such as our manufacturing facilities or our manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, or that otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time.

The process of manufacturing of our product candidates is complex and highly regulated. We do not currently own any facility that may be used as our clinical scale manufacturing facility and expect to rely on outside vendors to manufacture supplies of our product candidates. We will need to negotiate and maintain contractual arrangements with these outside vendors for the supply of our product candidates and we may not be able to do so on favorable terms. We have not yet caused any product candidates to be manufactured on a commercial scale. Our contract manufacturers may incorporate their own proprietary processes into our product candidate manufacturing processes. We have limited control and oversight of a third party’s contract manufacturer’s proprietary process, and a third party contract manufacturer may elect to modify its process without our consent or knowledge. These modifications could negatively impact our manufacturing, including product loss or failure that requires additional manufacturing runs or a change in manufacturer, both of which could significantly increase the cost of and significantly delay the manufacture of our product candidates.

As our product candidates progress through preclinical studies and clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, it is expected that various aspects of the manufacturing process will be altered in an effort to optimize processes and results. Such changes may require amendments to be made to regulatory applications which may further delay the timeframes under which modified manufacturing processes can be used for any of our product candidates and additional bridging studies or trials may be required.

The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the FDA or other foreign regulatory authorities following inspections that will be conducted after we submit an application to the FDA or other foreign regulatory authorities. We may not control the manufacturing process of, and may be completely dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with cGMPs and any other regulatory requirements of the FDA or other regulatory authorities for the manufacture of our product candidates. Beyond periodic audits, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws any approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would require the incurrence of significant additional costs and significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved. Similarly, if any third-party manufacturers on which we will rely fail to manufacture quantities of our product candidates at quality levels necessary to meet regulatory requirements and at a scale sufficient to meet anticipated demand at a cost that allows us to achieve profitability, our business, financial condition and prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

If any contract manufacturer with whom we contract fails to perform its obligations, we may be forced to manufacture the materials ourselves, for which we may not have the capabilities or resources, or enter into an agreement with a different contract manufacturer, which we may not be able to do on reasonable terms, if at all. In either scenario, our clinical trials supply could be delayed significantly as we establish alternative supply sources. In some cases, the technical skills required to manufacture our products or product candidates may be unique or proprietary to the original contract manufacturer and we may have difficulty, or there may be contractual restrictions prohibiting us from, transferring such skills to a back-up or alternate supplier, or we may be unable to transfer such skills at all. In addition, if we are required to change contract manufacturers for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new contract manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations. We will also need to verify, such as through a manufacturing comparability study, that any new manufacturing process will produce our product candidate according to the specifications previously submitted to the FDA or another regulatory authority. The delays associated with the verification of a new contract manufacturer could negatively affect our ability to develop product candidates or commercialize our products in a timely manner or within budget.

We currently have no sales, marketing or distribution capabilities and have no experience in marketing products. We intend to develop an in-house marketing organization and sales force, which will require significant capital expenditures, management resources and time. We will have to compete with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to recruit, hire, train and retain marketing and sales personnel.

If we are unable or decide not to establish internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, we will pursue arrangements with third-party sales, marketing, and distribution collaborators regarding the sales and marketing of our products, if approved. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to establish or maintain such arrangements on favorable terms or if at all, or if we are able to do so, that these third-party arrangements will provide effective sales forces or marketing and distribution capabilities. Any revenue we receive will depend upon the efforts of such third parties, which may not be successful. We may have little or no control over the marketing and sales efforts of such third parties and our revenue from product sales may be lower than if we had commercialized our product candidates ourselves. We also face competition in our search for third parties to assist us with the sales and marketing efforts of our product candidates.

There can be no assurance that we will be able to develop in-house sales and distribution capabilities or establish or maintain relationships with third-party collaborators to commercialize any product in the United States or overseas.

We plan to seek regulatory approval of our product candidates outside of the United States and, accordingly, we expect that we will be subject to additional risks related to operating in foreign countries if we obtain the necessary approvals, including:

These and other risks associated with international operations may materially adversely affect our ability to attain or maintain profitable operations.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we must focus on a limited number of research programs and product candidates and on specific indications. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future discovery and preclinical development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products.

The use of precision medicines as a potential cancer treatment is a recent development and may not become broadly accepted by physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers and others in the medical community. Various factors will influence whether our product candidates are accepted in the market, including:

If our product candidates are licensed but fail to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers or others in the medical community, we will not be able to generate significant revenue.

In addition, although our product candidates differ in certain ways from other precision medicine approaches, serious adverse events or deaths in other clinical trials involving precision medicines, even if not ultimately attributable to our product or product candidates, could result in increased government regulation, unfavorable public perception and publicity, potential regulatory delays in the testing or licensing of our product candidates, stricter labeling requirements for those product candidates that are licensed, and a decrease in demand for any such product candidates.

Even if our products achieve market acceptance, we may not be able to maintain that market acceptance over time if new products or technologies are introduced that are more favorably received than our products, are more cost effective or render our products obsolete.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries utilize rapidly advancing technologies and are characterized by intense competition. While we believe that our scientific knowledge, platform technology and development expertise provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceuticals, specialty pharmaceuticals and biotechnology companies, academic institutions and government agencies, and public and private research institutes that conduct research, development, manufacturing and commercialization. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, regulatory approvals and product marketing than we do. Our competitors may compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. As a result, our competitors may discover, develop, license or commercialize products before or more successfully than we do.

Product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. Specifically for BDTX-1535, we expect competition primarily in the EGFR NSCLC and GBM patient populations, including: GILOTRIF and TAGRISSO, which are marketed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and AstraZeneca, respectively; combination of amivantamab, or Rybrevant, and lazertinib, which is under development for NSCLC and EGFR acquired resistance mutations by Janssen Biotech, Inc.; patritumab deruxtecan, which is being developed by Daiichi Sankyo Co.; BLU-701 and BLU-945, which are under development by BluePrint Medicines Corporation; BBT-176, which is being developed by Bridge Biotherapeutics Inc; neratinib, which is marketed by Puma Biotechnology, Inc. under the trade name Nerlynx, which is currently approved for HER2+ breast cancer, but also under development for NSCLC EGFR intrinsic resistance mutations; ERAS-801, which is under development by Erasca, Inc.; WSD-0922-FU, which is under development by Wayshine Biopharm International Ltd.; CM93, which is under development by Crimson Biopharm Inc.; RO7428731, which is under development by Hoffman Roche; TAS2940, which is under development by Taiho Oncology; and epitinib, which is under development by Hutchison MediPharma Ltd.

Specifically for BDTX-189, we expect competition primarily in the EGFR and HER2 exon 20 insertion NSCLC patient populations, including: mobocertinib (TAK-788), which is marketed by Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd; amivantamab (JNJ-61186372), which is marketed by Janssen Research & Development, LLC; trastuzumab deruxtecan (DS-8201), marketed by Daiichi Sankyo Company Ltd. and AstraZeneca plc under the trade name Enhertu, which is currently approved for HER2+ breast cancer, but under development for HER2 mutant solid tumors; poziotinib, which is under development by Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc; CLN-081 (formerly TAS6417), which is under development by Cullinan Oncology, LLC; and DZD9008, which is under development by Dizal Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. In addition, there are other small molecule and precision oncology-focused companies with whom we may eventually compete, including Loxo Oncology, Inc. (recently acquired by Eli Lilly and Company), SpringWorks Therapeutics, Inc., Centessa Pharmaceuticals, Theseus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Voronoi, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Turning Point Therapeutics, Inc., and Mirati Therapeutics, Inc, and Kinnate Biopharma, Inc.

If our drug candidates, including BDTX-1535 and BDTX-189, are approved for the indications for which we are currently planning clinical trials, they will likely compete with the competitor drugs mentioned above and with other drugs that are currently in development. Key product features that would affect our ability to effectively compete with other therapeutics include the efficacy, safety and convenience of our products. Our competitors may obtain patent protection or other intellectual property rights that limit our ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates. The availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors will also significantly affect the pricing and competitiveness of our products. Our competitors may also obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. For additional information regarding our competition, see “Business—Competition.”

We are a biotechnology company with a limited operating history. We commenced operations in December 2014, and our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, conducting discovery and research activities, filing patent applications, identifying potential product candidates, undertaking preclinical studies and establishing arrangements with third parties for the manufacture of initial quantities of our product candidates and component materials. Most of our product candidates are still in early clinical or preclinical development. We have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully conduct or complete any clinical trials, obtain marketing approvals, manufacture a commercial-scale product or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales, marketing and distribution activities necessary for successful product commercialization.

Consequently, any predictions you make about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history.

In addition, as a young business, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors. We will need to transition at some point from a company with a research and development focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition.

Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate efficacy or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. We are still in the early stages of development of our product candidates. Our most advanced product candidates, BDTX-1535 and BDTX-189, are currently only in Phase 1 clinical studies. We have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales to date, and we continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. We have financed our operations primarily through private placements of our preferred stock.

We have incurred significant net losses in each period since we commenced operations in December 2014. For the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, we reported net losses of $125.6 million and $67.3 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $243.8 million. We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase substantially if and as we:

Our ability to become profitable depends upon our ability to generate revenue. To date, we have not generated any revenue from any of our product candidates. We do not expect to generate significant revenue unless or until we successfully complete clinical development and obtain regulatory approval of, and then successfully commercialize, at least one of our product candidates. Most of our product candidates are in early clinical or preclinical stages of development and will require additional preclinical studies, clinical development, regulatory review and approval, substantial investment, access to sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity and significant marketing efforts before we can generate any revenue from product sales. Our most advanced product candidates, BDTX-1535 and BDTX-189, are currently only in Phase 1 clinical studies. Our other product candidates are in various stages of preclinical development. We face significant translational risk as our product candidates in preclinical development advance to the clinical stage, as promising results in preclinical studies may not be replicated in subsequent clinical trials and testing on animals may not accurately predict human experience. Our ability to generate revenue depends on a number of factors, including, but not limited to:

Many of the factors listed above are beyond our control and could cause us to experience significant delays or prevent us from obtaining regulatory approvals or commercializing our product candidates. Even if we are able to commercialize our product candidates, we may not achieve profitability soon after generating product sales, if ever. If we are unable to generate sufficient revenue through the sale of our product candidates or any future product candidates, we may be unable to continue operations without continued funding.

We expect our expenses to increase in parallel with our ongoing activities, particularly as we continue our discovery and preclinical development activities to identify new product candidates and initiate clinical trials of, and seek marketing approval for, our product candidates. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. However, we have estimated our current additional funding needs based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong. Additionally, changing circumstances may cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more money than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control. We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenue, we expect to finance our operations through a combination of public or private equity offerings, debt financings, governmental funding, collaborations, strategic partnerships and alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our discovery and preclinical development programs or any future commercialization efforts.

We had cash, cash equivalents and investments of $209.8 million as of December 31, 2021. Our net proceeds from our initial public offering were $212.1 million, based the initial public offering price of $19.00 per share, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses payable by us. We believe that, based upon our current operating plan, our existing capital resources, including net proceeds from our initial public offering will be sufficient to fund our anticipated operations into 2024, including the Phase 1 trial of BDTX-1535 and the Phase 1 safety expansion cohort of the clinical trial of BDTX-189 and IND-enabling studies for our BRAF program, with additional resources for continued development of our MAP drug discovery engine. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

Identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain marketing approval and achieve product sales. In addition, our product candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success. Our commercial revenues, if any, will be derived from sales of products that we do not expect to be commercially available for many years, if at all. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional financing to achieve our business objectives. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.

We are very early in our development efforts, and most of our product candidates are still in early clinical or preclinical development. We have invested substantially all of our efforts and financial resources in the identification and preclinical development of our product candidates, including the development of our clinical-stage product candidates, BDTX-1535 and BDTX-189. Our ability to generate product revenues, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend on the successful development, approval and eventual commercialization of our product candidates, which may never occur. We currently generate no revenue from sales of any products, and we may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable product. The success of our product candidates will depend on several factors, including the following:

If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize our product candidates, which would materially harm our business. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations.

Our product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale, distribution, import and export are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and by comparable authorities in other countries. Before we can commercialize any of our product candidates, we must obtain marketing approval. Our most advanced product candidates, BDTX-1535 and BDTX-189, are currently only in Phase 1 clinical studies. Whether the results from our current and future clinical trials will suffice to obtain approval will be a review issue and the FDA may not grant approval and may require that we conduct one or more controlled, randomized Phase 3 clinical trials to obtain approval. There is limited experience of regulatory authorities outside of the United States with the approval of precision cancer medicines.

Securing regulatory approval also requires the submission of information about the drug manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the relevant regulatory authority. Further, our product candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use.

The process of obtaining regulatory approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive, may take many years if additional clinical trials are required, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted IND, NDA, or equivalent application types, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. The FDA and comparable authorities in other countries have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. Our product candidates could be delayed in receiving, or fail to receive, regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

Additionally, as of May 26, 2021, the FDA noted it is continuing to ensure timely reviews of applications for medical products during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic in line with its user fee performance goals. However, the FDA may not be able to continue its current pace and approval timelines could be extended, including where a pre-approval inspection or an inspection of clinical sites is required and due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and travel restrictions FDA is unable to complete such required inspections during the review period. During the COVID-19 public health emergency, a number of companies announced receipt of complete response letters due to the FDA's inability to complete required inspections for their applications.

Of the large number of drugs in development, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA or foreign regulatory approval processes and are commercialized. The lengthy approval process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals to market and sell any of our product candidates, including BDTX-1535, BDTX-189 and any other future product candidates, we must demonstrate through extensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that our products are safe and effective in humans. Our product candidates may fail to demonstrate efficacy in humans, and particularly across tumor types. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process and our future clinical trial results may not be successful. Further, the process of obtaining regulatory approval is expensive, often takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and can vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved, as well as the target indications, patient population and regulatory agency. Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize a product candidate in the United States or abroad, we or our potential future collaborators must demonstrate with substantial evidence from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, that such product candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses.

Clinical trials that we conduct may not demonstrate the efficacy and safety necessary to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, changes in and adherence to the clinical trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. If the results of our ongoing or future clinical trials are inconclusive with respect to the efficacy of our product candidates, if we do not meet the clinical endpoints with statistical and clinically meaningful significance, or if there are safety concerns associated with our product candidates, we may be delayed in obtaining marketing approval, if at all.

Even if the trials are successfully completed, clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and we cannot guarantee that the FDA, the EMA, or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities will interpret the results as we do, and more trials could be required before we submit our product candidates for approval. We cannot guarantee that the FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities will view our product candidates as having sufficient efficacy to support a tumor-agnostic indication even if positive results are observed in clinical trials. To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities for support of a marketing application, approval of our product candidates may be significantly delayed, or we may be required to expend significant additional resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates. Additionally, any safety or efficacy concerns observed in any tumor-specific subgroup of our clinical trials could limit the prospects for regulatory approval of our product candidates for a tumor-agnostic indication, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a disease or condition with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug or biologic in the United States will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug or biologic. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the drug and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for a particular active ingredient for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including an NDA, to market the same biologic for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity or if the FDA finds that the holder of the orphan drug exclusivity has not shown that it can assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan drug to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated. As a result, even if one of our product candidates receives orphan exclusivity, the FDA can still approve other drugs that have a different active ingredient for use in treating the same indication or disease. Furthermore, the FDA can waive orphan exclusivity if we are unable to manufacture sufficient supply of our product.

We may seek orphan drug designation for BDTX-1535, BDTX-189 and some or all of our other future product candidates in additional orphan indications in which there is a medically plausible basis for the use of these products. Even when we obtain orphan drug designation, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan designated indication and may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. In addition, although we intend to seek orphan drug designation for other product candidates, we may never receive such designations. For example, the FDA has expressed concerns regarding the regulatory considerations for orphan drug designation as applied to tissue agnostic therapies, and the FDA may interpret the FD&C Act and regulations promulgated thereunder in a way that limits or blocks our ability to obtain orphan drug designation or orphan drug exclusivity, if our product candidates are approved, for our targeted indications.

On August 3, 2017, Congress passed the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, or FDARA. FDARA, among other things, codified the FDA’s pre-existing regulatory interpretation, to require that a drug sponsor demonstrate the clinical superiority of an orphan drug that is otherwise the same as a previously approved drug for the same rare disease in order to receive orphan drug exclusivity. The legislation reverses prior precedent holding that the Orphan Drug Act unambiguously requires that the FDA recognize the orphan exclusivity period regardless of a showing of clinical superiority. Moreover, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, Congress did not further change this interpretation when it clarified that the interpretation codified in FDARA would apply in cases where FDA issued an orphan designation before the enactment of FDARA but where product approval came after the enactment of FDARA. The FDA may further reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. We do not know if, when, or how the FDA may change the orphan drug regulations and policies in the future, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business. Depending on what changes the FDA may make to its orphan drug regulations and policies, our business could be adversely impacted.

We may seek Breakthrough Therapy designation for BDTX-1535, BDTX-189 and some or all of our future product candidates. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug or biologic that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug or biologic may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For product candidates that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Drugs designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA may also be eligible for other expedited approval programs, including accelerated approval.

Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to candidate products considered for approval under non-expedited FDA review procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as breakthrough therapies, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification. Thus, even though we intend to seek Breakthrough Therapy designation for BDTX-1535, BDTX-189 and some or all of our future product candidates for the treatment of various cancers, there can be no assurance that we will receive breakthrough therapy designation.

If a drug is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the drug demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the drug sponsor may apply for FDA Fast Track designation for a particular indication. We have been granted Fast Track designation for BDTX-189 for the treatment of adult patients with solid tumors harboring an allosteric human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) mutation or an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or HER2 Exon 20 insertion mutation who have progressed following prior treatment and who have no satisfactory treatment options. We may seek Fast Track designation for other indications or for BDTX-1535 or certain of our future product candidates, but there is no assurance that the FDA will grant this status to any of our other proposed product candidates. Marketing applications filed by sponsors of products in Fast Track development may qualify for priority review under the policies and procedures offered by the FDA, but the Fast Track designation does not assure any such qualification or ultimate marketing approval by the FDA. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant Fast Track designation, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, there can be no assurance that the FDA would decide to grant it. Even if we do receive Fast Track designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures, and receiving a Fast Track designation does not provide assurance of ultimate FDA approval. In addition, the FDA may withdraw Fast Track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. In addition, the FDA may withdraw any Fast Track designation at any time.

We may seek approval of product candidates using the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway. A product may be eligible for accelerated approval if it treats a serious or life-threatening condition and generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies. In addition, it must demonstrate an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. These confirmatory trials must be completed with due diligence. In addition, the FDA currently requires, unless otherwise informed by the agency, pre-approval of promotional materials for products receiving accelerated approval, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. Even if we do receive accelerated approval, we may not experience a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and receiving accelerated approval does not provide assurance of ultimate full FDA approval.

We intend to rely on third parties for the design, development and manufacture of companion diagnostic tests for our therapeutic drug candidates that may require such tests. If we enter into such collaborative agreements, we will be dependent on the sustained cooperation and effort of our future collaborators in developing and obtaining approval for these companion diagnostics. It may be necessary to resolve issues such as selectivity/specificity, analytical validation, reproducibility, or clinical validation of companion diagnostics during the development and regulatory approval processes. Moreover, even if data from preclinical studies and early clinical trials appear to support development of a companion diagnostic for a product candidate, data generated in later clinical trials may fail to support the analytical and clinical validation of the companion diagnostic. We and our future collaborators may encounter difficulties in developing, obtaining regulatory approval for, manufacturing and commercializing companion diagnostics similar to those we face with respect to our therapeutic candidates themselves, including issues with achieving regulatory clearance or approval, production of sufficient quantities at commercial scale and with appropriate quality standards, and in gaining market acceptance. If we are unable to successfully develop companion diagnostics for these therapeutic drug candidates, or experience delays in doing so, the development of these therapeutic drug candidates may be adversely affected, these therapeutic drug candidates may not obtain marketing approval, and we may not realize the full commercial potential of any of these therapeutics that obtain marketing approval. As a result, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially harmed. In addition, a diagnostic company with whom we contract may decide to discontinue selling or manufacturing the companion diagnostic test that we anticipate using in connection with development and commercialization of our product candidates or our relationship with such diagnostic company may otherwise terminate. We may not be able to enter into arrangements with another diagnostic company to obtain supplies of an alternative diagnostic test for use in connection with the development and commercialization of our product candidates or do so on commercially reasonable terms, which could adversely affect and/or delay the development or commercialization of our therapeutic candidates.

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction, while a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval of a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion of the product candidate in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials as clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval.

We may also submit marketing applications in other countries. Regulatory authorities in jurisdictions outside of the United States have requirements for approval of product candidates with which we must comply prior to marketing in those jurisdictions. Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed.

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates will require surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. The FDA may also require a REMS in order to approve our product candidates, which could entail requirements for a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for our product candidates will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with applicable cGMP, GLP and GCP requirements, for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. For certain commercial prescription drug products, manufacturers and other parties involved in the supply chain must also meet chain of distribution requirements and build electronic, interoperable systems for product tracking and tracing and for notifying the FDA of counterfeit, diverted, stolen and intentionally adulterated products or other products that are otherwise unfit for distribution in the United States. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with our product candidates, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:

The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

If any of our product candidates are approved and we are found to have improperly promoted off-label uses of those products, we may become subject to significant liability. The FDA and other regulatory agencies strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products, if approved. In particular, while the FDA permits the dissemination of truthful and non-misleading information about an approved product, a manufacturer may not promote a product for uses that are not approved by the FDA or such other regulatory agencies as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct must be changed or curtailed. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of our product candidates, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

The regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing, coverage and reimbursement for new drugs vary widely from country to country. In the United States, recently enacted legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenue we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, even if any product candidates we may develop obtain marketing approval.

In the United States and markets in other countries, patients generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Adequate coverage and reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors is critical to new product acceptance. Our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Government authorities and other third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. The availability of coverage and extent of reimbursement by governmental and private payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford treatments such as gene therapy products. Sales of these or other product candidates that we may identify will depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations, or reimbursed by government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors. If coverage and adequate reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment.

Reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. In many countries, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. In general, the prices of medicines under such systems are substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our product candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for products may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenues and profits.

There is also significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the medicine is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by CMS, an agency within HHS. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. No uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors and coverage and reimbursement levels for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time consuming and costly process that may require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. It is difficult to predict what CMS will decide with respect to reimbursement for fundamentally novel products such as ours. Reimbursement agencies in Europe may be more conservative than CMS. For example, a number of cancer drugs have been approved for reimbursement in the United States and have not been approved for reimbursement in certain European countries. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale, and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary

according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable payment rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products we may develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize product candidates, and our overall financial condition.

Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable reimbursement rates third-party payors for any approved products that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition.

Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any product candidate that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, the level of reimbursement. Reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. In order to obtain reimbursement, physicians may need to show that patients have superior treatment outcomes with our products compared to standard of care drugs, including lower-priced generic versions of standard of care drugs. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our product candidates due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products.

Additionally, we may develop companion diagnostic tests for use with our product candidates. We, or our collaborators, may be required to obtain coverage and reimbursement for these tests separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement we seek for our product candidates, once approved. Even if we obtain regulatory approval or clearance for such companion diagnostics, there is significant uncertainty regarding our ability to obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement for the same reasons applicable to our product candidates. Medicare reimbursement methodologies, whether under Part A, Part B, or clinical laboratory fee schedule may be amended from time to time, and we cannot predict what effect any change to these methodologies would have on any product candidate or companion diagnostic for which we receive approval. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement from both third-party payors for the companion diagnostic tests that we develop and for which we obtain regulatory approval could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The United States and many foreign jurisdictions have enacted or proposed legislative and regulatory changes affecting the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates or any future product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell a product for which we obtain marketing approval. Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. For example, on July 9, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order directing the FDA to, among other things, continue to clarify and improve the approval framework for generic drugs and identify and address any efforts to impede generic drug competition.

Further, in March 2010, the ACA was passed, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacted the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjects biological products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, addresses a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increases the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extends the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, establishes annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and creates a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 70% (increased pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, effective as of 2019) point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, administrative, executive and Congressional legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. For example,. various portions of the ACA are currently undergoing constitutional challenges in the Fifth Circuit Court and the United States Supreme Court, and the Trump Administration issued various Executive Orders eliminating cost sharing subsidies and various provisions that would impose a fiscal burden on states or a cost, fee, tax, penalty or regulatory burden on individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. Additionally, Congress introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at significantly revising or repealing the ACA. It is unclear whether the ACA will be overturned, repealed, replaced, or further amended. We cannot predict what affect further changes to the ACA would have on our business, especially given the new administration.

Members of the U.S. Congress and the Trump administration expressed an intent to pass legislation or adopt executive orders to fundamentally change or repeal parts of the ACA. While Congress has not passed repeal legislation to date, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or TCJA, repealed, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” On December 14, 2018, a federal district court in Texas ruled the individual mandate is a critical and inseverable feature of the ACA, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the TCJA, the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. The Trump Administration and CMS both stated that the ruling will have no immediate effect, and on December 18, 2019, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, and remanded the case to the lower court to reconsider its earlier invalidation of the full ACA. Pending review, the ACA remains in effect, but it is unclear at this time what effect the latest ruling will have on the status of the ACA. Litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. We will continue to evaluate the effect that the ACA and its possible repeal and replacement has on our business.

Further, on January 20, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal burden on states or a cost, fee, tax, penalty or regulatory burden on individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. On October 13, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order terminating the cost-sharing subsidies that reimburse insurers under the ACA. The Trump administration concluded that cost-sharing reduction, or CSR, payments to insurance companies required under the ACA have not received necessary appropriations from Congress and announced that it will discontinue these payments immediately until those appropriations are made. The loss of the CSR payments is expected to increase premiums on certain policies issued by qualified health plans under the ACA. Several state Attorneys General filed suit to stop the administration from terminating the subsidies, but their request for a restraining order was denied by a federal judge in California on October 25, 2017. On August 14, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in two separate cases that the federal government is liable for the full amount of unpaid CSRs for the years preceding and including 2017. For CSR claims made by health insurance companies for years 2018 and later, further litigation will be required to determine the amounts due, if any. Further, on June 14, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the federal government was not required to pay to third-party payors more than $12 billion in ACA risk corridor payments that they argued were owed to them.

On April 27, 2020, the United States Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision and remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, concluding the government has an obligation to pay these risk corridor payments under the relevant formula. On March 2, 2020, the United States Supreme Court granted the petitions for writs of certiorari to review this case, and held oral arguments on November 10, 2020. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is forthcoming. The effects of this gap in reimbursement on third-party payors, the viability of the ACA marketplace, providers, and potentially our business, are not yet known.

On December 20, 2019, President Trump signed into law the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 1865), which repealed the so called “Cadillac” tax on certain high cost employer-sponsored insurance plans, the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share, and the medical devise excise tax on non-exempt medical devises. It is impossible to determine whether similar taxes could be instated in the future. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, also amended the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, by increasing the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and closing the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” CMS published a final rule permitting further collections and payments to and from certain ACA qualified health plans and health insurance issuers under the ACA risk adjustment program in response to the outcome of federal district court litigation regarding the method CMS uses to determine this risk adjustment. In addition, CMS published a final rule that gives states greater flexibility, as of 2020, in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the ACA for plans sold through such marketplaces. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers up to 2% per fiscal year, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken. Pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, also known as the CARES Act, as well as subsequent legislation, these reductions have been suspended from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Proposed legislation, if passed, would extend this suspension until the end of the pandemic. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, or ATRA, was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Additionally, the Trump administration also previously released a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products and reduce the out of pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. HHS solicited feedback on some of these measures and has implemented others under its existing authority. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy, a type of prior authorization, for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020.

Further, on May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a pharmaceutical manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.

Additionally, the FDA published a final rule, effective November 30, 2020, that allows for the importation of certain prescription drugs from Canada. Under the final rule, states and Indian Tribes, and in certain future circumstances pharmacists and wholesalers, may submit importation program proposals to the FDA for review and authorization. On September 25, 2020, CMS stated drugs imported by States under this rule will not be eligible for federal rebates under Section 1927 of the Social Security Act and manufacturers would not report these drugs for “best price” or Average Manufacturer Price purposes. Since these drugs are not considered covered outpatient drugs, CMS further stated it will not publish a National Average Drug Acquisition Cost for these drugs. Separately, the FDA also issued a final guidance document outlining a potential pathway for manufacturers to obtain an additional National Drug Code, or NDC, for an FDA-approved drug that was originally intended to be marketed in a foreign country and that was authorized for sale in that foreign country.

At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional health care authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other health care programs. Some of these proposed measures, including drug importation and pharmacy benefit manager rebate rule changes, face legal challenges from industry groups and participants. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing.

We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

Our revenue prospects could be affected by changes in healthcare spending and policy in the United States and abroad. We operate in a highly regulated industry and new laws, regulations or judicial decisions, or new interpretations of existing laws, regulations or decisions, related to healthcare availability, the method of delivery or payment for healthcare products and services could negatively impact our business, operations and financial condition.

There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future, including repeal, replacement or significant revisions to the ACA. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect:

Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors, which may adversely affect our future profitability.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Disruptions at the FDA or other government agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

Since March 2020, when foreign and domestic inspections were largely placed on hold, the FDA has been working to resume routine surveillance, bioresearch monitoring and pre-approval inspections on a prioritized basis. Since April 2021, the FDA has conducted limited inspections and employed remote interactive evaluations and risk management methods to meet user fee commitments and goal dates. Ongoing travel restrictions and other uncertainties continue to impact oversight operations both domestic and abroad and it is unclear when standard operational levels will resume. The FDA is continuing to complete mission-critical work, prioritize other higher-tiered inspectional needs (e.g., for-cause inspections), and carry out surveillance inspections using risk-based approaches for evaluating public health. Should the FDA determine that an inspection is necessary for approval and an inspection cannot be completed during the review cycle due to restrictions on travel, and the FDA does not determine a remote interactive evaluation to be adequate, the FDA has stated that it generally intends to issue, depending on the circumstances a complete response letter or defer action on the application until an inspection can be completed. During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, a number of companies announced receipt of complete response letters due to the FDA’s inability to complete required inspections for their applications. Regulatory authorities outside the U.S. may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and may experience delays in their regulatory activities.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other illegal activity by our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct that fails to: comply with the regulations of the FDA and other similar foreign regulatory authorities, provide true, complete and accurate information to the FDA and other similar foreign regulatory authorities, comply with manufacturing standards we have established, comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws in the United States and similar foreign fraudulent misconduct laws or report financial information or data accurately or to disclose unauthorized activities to us. If we obtain FDA approval of any of our product candidates and begin commercializing those products in the United States, our potential exposure under such laws and regulations will increase significantly, and our costs associated with compliance with such laws and regulations are also likely to increase. These laws may impact, among other things, our current activities with principal investigators and research patients, as well as proposed and future sales, marketing and education programs. In particular, the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services, as well as certain business arrangements in the healthcare industry, are subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion,

structuring and commission(s), certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:

We have adopted a code of business conduct and ethics, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent inappropriate conduct may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant criminal, civil and administrative sanctions including monetary penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, and exclusion from participation in government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of noncompliance with these laws, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and we may be required to curtail or restructure our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. The shifting compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust and expandable systems to comply with multiple jurisdictions with different compliance and/or reporting requirements increases the possibility that a healthcare company may run afoul of one or more of the requirements.

The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in the EU. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians is typically governed by the national anti-bribery laws of EU Member States, and the Bribery Act 2010 in the UK. Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment. EU Directive 2001/83/EC, which is the EU Directive governing medicinal products for human use, further provides that, where medicinal products are being promoted to persons qualified to prescribe or supply them, no gifts, pecuniary advantages or benefits in kind may be supplied, offered or promised to such persons unless they are inexpensive and relevant to the practice of medicine or pharmacy. This provision has been transposed into the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and so remains applicable in the UK despite its departure from the EU. Payments made to physicians in certain EU Member States must be publicly disclosed.

Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual EU Member States.

These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the EU Member States.

Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our product candidates, including BDTX-1535, BDTX-189, their respective components, formulations, combination therapies, methods used to manufacture them and methods of treatment and development that are important to our business, as well as successfully defending these patents against third-party challenges. If we do not adequately protect our intellectual property rights, competitors

may be able to erode or negate any competitive advantage we may have, which could harm our business and ability to achieve profitability.

We intend to rely upon a combination of patent applications, confidentiality agreements, trade secret protection and license agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our product candidates and technologies. Any disclosure to or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential proprietary information could enable competitors to quickly duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in our market. We, or any future partners, collaborators, or licensees, may fail to identify patentable aspects of inventions made in the course of development and commercialization activities before it is too late to obtain patent protection on them. Therefore, we may miss potential opportunities to establish our patent position.

To protect our proprietary position, we plan to file patent applications in the United States and abroad relating to our product candidates and MAP drug discovery engine that are important to our business; we may in the future also license or purchase patents or patent applications owned by others. Our ability to stop unauthorized third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our product candidates is dependent upon the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets that cover these activities. If we are unable to secure or maintain patent protection with respect to BDTX-1535, BDTX-189, our MAP drug discovery engine or any other proprietary products and technology we develop, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects would be materially harmed.

The U.S. provisional patent applications, the U.S. patent applications, or the PCT patent applications, and the foreign patent applications currently owned by us may never result in an issued patent. The U.S. provisional patent applications may not be eligible to become an issued patent until, among other things, we convert the U.S. provisional patent applications to one or more non-provisional patent applications within 12 months. If we do not timely convert the U.S. provisional patent applications to any non-provisional application, we may lose our priority date with respect to our U.S. provisional patent applications and any patent protection on the inventions disclosed in such U.S. provisional patent applications. The pending PCT patent application is not eligible to become an issued patent until, among other things, we file a national stage patent application within 30 months in the countries in which we seek patent protection. If we do not timely file any national stage patent applications, we may lose our priority date with respect to our PCT patent application and any patent protection on the inventions disclosed in such PCT patent application. While we intend to timely convert the U.S. provisional patent applications to one or more non-provisional patent applications and to timely file a national stage patent application relating to our PCT patent application, we cannot predict whether any of our future patent applications for BDTX-1535, BDTX-189 or any of our other product candidates will result in the issuance of patents that effectively protect BDTX-1535, BDTX-189 or our other product candidates. If we do not successfully obtain patent protection, or, even if we do obtain patent protection, if the scope of the patent protection we or our potential licensors obtain with respect to BDTX-1535, BDTX-189 or our other product candidates and technology is not sufficiently broad, we will be unable to prevent others from using our technology or from developing or commercializing technology and products similar or identical to ours or other competing products and technologies. Any failure to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to BDTX-1535, BDTX-189 and our other product candidates would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The degree of patent protection we require to successfully compete in the marketplace may be unavailable or severely limited in some cases and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. We cannot provide any assurances that any patents we may own or in-license in the future will have, or that any of our patent applications that mature into issued patents will include, claims with a scope sufficient to protect our current and future product candidates or otherwise provide any competitive advantage. In addition, to the extent that we license intellectual property in the future, we cannot assure you that those licenses will remain in force. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Furthermore, patents have a limited lifespan, and the term of any patents we may own or in-license in the future may be inadequate to protect our competitive position of our product candidates or technology for an adequate amount of time. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after it is filed. Various extensions may be available; however, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Given the amount

of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized.

Even if they are unchallenged, our patent applications, if issued, and any patents we may own or in-license in the future, may not provide us with any meaningful protection or prevent competitors from designing around our patent claims to circumvent any patents we may own or in-license in the future by developing similar or alternative technologies or therapeutics in a non-infringing manner. For example, a third party may develop a competitive therapy that provides benefits similar to one or more of our product candidates but that uses a formulation and/or a device that falls outside the scope of any patent protection we may have in the future. If the patent protection provided by our patent applications or any patents we may pursue with respect to our product candidates is not sufficiently broad to impede such competition, our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates could be negatively affected, which would harm our business. Although we currently own our patent applications, similar risks would apply to any patents or patent applications that we may own or in-license in the future.

Patent positions of life sciences companies can be uncertain and involve complex factual and legal questions. Changes in either the patent laws or their interpretation in any jurisdiction that we seek patent protection may diminish our ability to protect our inventions, maintain and enforce our intellectual property rights; and, more generally, may affect the value of our intellectual property, including the narrowing of the scope of our patent applications or any patents we may own or in-license in the future.

The patent prosecution process is complex, expensive, time-consuming and inconsistent across jurisdictions. Patent license negotiations also can be complex and protracted, with uncertain results. We may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce, or license all necessary or desirable patent rights at a commercially reasonable cost or in a timely manner. In addition, we may not pursue or obtain patent protection in all relevant markets. It is possible that we will fail to identify important patentable aspects of our research and development efforts in time to obtain appropriate or any patent protection. While we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to confidential or patentable aspects of our research and development efforts, including for example, our employees, corporate collaborators, external academic scientific collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose results before a patent application is filed, thereby endangering our ability to seek patent protection. In addition, publications of discoveries in the scientific and scholarly literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Consequently, we cannot be certain that we were the first to file for patent protection on the inventions claimed in our patent applications.

It is possible that defects of form in the preparation or filing of our patent applications, or any patents we may own or in-license in the future, may exist or may arise in the future, for example with respect to proper priority claims, inventorship, claim scope, or requests for patent term adjustments. If we or our partners, collaborators, licensees or licensors fail to establish, maintain or protect such patents and other intellectual property rights, such rights may be reduced or eliminated. If our partners, collaborators, licensees or licensors are not fully cooperative or disagree with us as to the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of any patent rights, such patent rights could be compromised. If there are material defects in the form, preparation, prosecution, or enforcement of our patent applications or patents we may own or in-license in the future, such patents may be invalid and/or unenforceable, and such applications may never result in valid, enforceable patents. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business.

Additionally, we cannot be certain that the claims in our patent applications covering composition of matter of our product candidates or technology will be considered patentable by the USPTO, or by patent offices in foreign countries, or that the claims in any issued patents we may own or in-license in the future will be considered patentable by courts in the United States or foreign countries.

Method of use patents protect the use of a product for the specified method. These types of patents do not prevent a competitor from making and marketing a product that is identical to our product for an indication that is outside the scope of the patented method. Moreover, even if competitors do not actively promote their product for our targeted indications, physicians may prescribe these products “off-label.” Although off-label prescriptions may induce or contribute to the infringement of method of use patents, the practice is common and such infringement is difficult to prevent or prosecute.

The patent position of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies generally is highly uncertain and involves complex legal and factual questions for which many legal principles remain unresolved. In recent years, patent rights have been the subject of significant litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of any rights we may have from our patent applications are highly uncertain. Our patent applications may not result in patents being issued in the United States or in other jurisdictions which protect our technology or products or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Moreover, our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents depends on whether the differences between our inventions and the prior art, including our own previously filed patent applications and scientific publications, allow our inventions to be patentable over the prior art. Even if our patent applications issue as patents, third parties could challenge the validity of such patents based on such scientific publications and we could potentially lose valuable patent rights. Further, the scope of the invention claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and this scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Even where patent applications we currently own or that we may license in the future issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors or other third parties from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with a competitive advantage. Any patents that eventually issue may be challenged, narrowed or invalidated by third parties. Consequently, we do not know whether any of our product candidates will be protectable or remain protected by valid and enforceable patent rights. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to evade any rights we may have from our patent applications by developing new compounds or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner.

In addition, given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our intellectual property may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

Moreover, some of our intellectual property, including any patents we may own or in-license in the future, may be co-owned with third parties. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third-party co-owners’ interest in such intellectual property, including patents or patent applications, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and

technology. In addition, we or our future licensors may need the cooperation of any such co-owners of our owned and in-licensed intellectual property, including patents and patent applications, in order to enforce such intellectual property against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us or our future licensors. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects.

We are generally also subject to all of the same risks with respect to protection of intellectual property that we license, as we are for intellectual property that we own, which are described below. If we or our future licensors fail to adequately protect this intellectual property, our ability to commercialize products could suffer.

In the future, we may be party to license or collaboration agreements with third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of product candidates. Such future agreements may impose numerous obligations, such as development, diligence, payment, commercialization, funding, milestone, royalty, sublicensing, insurance, patent prosecution, enforcement and other obligations on us and may require us to meet development timelines, or to exercise commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize licensed products, in order to maintain the licenses. In spite of our best efforts, our future licensors might conclude that we have materially breached our future license agreements and might therefore terminate the license agreements, thereby removing or limiting our ability to develop and commercialize products and technologies covered by these license agreements.

Any termination of these licenses, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended exclusivity, could result in the loss of significant rights and could harm our ability to commercialize our product candidates, and competitors or other third parties would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical to ours and we may be required to cease our development and commercialization of certain of our product candidates. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

Disputes may also arise between us and our future licensors regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including:

In addition, the agreements under which we may license intellectual property or technology from third parties in the future are likely to be complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we may license in the future prevent or impair our ability to maintain future licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents we may own or in-license in the future, we seek to rely on trade secret protection, confidentiality agreements, and license agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our product discovery and development processes, including our MAP drug discovery engine that involve proprietary know-how, information, or technology that is not covered by patents. Although we require all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information, or technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, trade secrets can be difficult to protect and we have limited control over the protection of trade secrets used by our collaborators and suppliers. We cannot be certain that we have or will obtain these agreements in all circumstances and we cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary information.

Moreover, any of these parties might breach the agreements and intentionally or inadvertently disclose our trade secret information and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. In addition, competitors may otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Furthermore, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights and trade secrets to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property both in the United States and abroad. If we are unable to prevent unauthorized material disclosure of our intellectual property to third parties, we will not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and future prospects.

Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. If we choose to go to court to stop a third party from using any of our trade secrets, we may incur substantial costs. These lawsuits may consume our time and other resources even if we are successful. For example, significant elements of our MAP drug discovery engine, including aspects of oncogenicity computational algorithms, in vivo experiments to validate mechanisms and pharmacology, drug design, and related processes, are based on unpatented trade secrets that are not publicly disclosed. Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information and trade secrets, including through contractual means with our employees and consultants, third parties may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or disclose our technology. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us.

Thus, we may not be able to meaningfully protect our trade secrets. It is our policy to require our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. These agreements provide that all confidential information concerning our business or financial affairs developed or made known to the individual or entity during the course of the party’s relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in specific circumstances. In addition, we take other appropriate precautions, such as physical and technological security measures, to guard against misappropriation of our proprietary technology by third parties. In the case of employees, the agreements provide that all inventions conceived by the individual, and which are related to our current or planned business or research and development or made during normal working hours, on our premises or using our equipment or proprietary information, are our exclusive property. Although we require all of our employees to assign their inventions to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. The assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing, or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Such claims could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Because developing our product candidates may require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these proprietary rights.

Our product candidates may also require specific formulations to work effectively and efficiently and these rights may be held by others. Similarly, efficient production or delivery of our product candidates may also require specific compositions or methods, and the rights to these may be owned by third parties. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary or important to our business operations. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all, which would harm our business. We may need to cease use of the compositions or methods covered by such third-party intellectual property rights, and may need to seek to develop alternative approaches that do not infringe on such intellectual property rights which may entail additional costs and development delays, even if we were able to develop such alternatives, which may not be feasible. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be nonexclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technology. Moreover, the molecules that will be used with our product candidates may be covered by the intellectual property rights of others.

Additionally, we sometimes collaborate with academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development under written agreements with these institutions. In certain cases, these institutions provide us with an option to negotiate a license to any of the institution’s rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Regardless of such option, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified timeframe or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, the institution may offer the intellectual property rights to others, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our program and allowing third parties to compete with us. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property or to maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of such program and our business and financial condition could suffer.

The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and companies, which may be more established, or have greater resources than we do, may also be pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider necessary or attractive in order to commercialize our product candidates. More established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment or at all. There can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully complete such negotiations and ultimately acquire the rights to the intellectual property surrounding the additional product candidates that we may seek to acquire. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property or to maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of such program and our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects could suffer.

If we or our future licensors or strategic partners initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate, as applicable, is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace, and there are numerous grounds upon which a third party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of patentable subject matter, lack of

Such proceedings also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our scientists and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. If we are unsuccessful in any such proceeding or other priority or inventorship dispute, we may be required to obtain and maintain licenses from third parties, including parties involved in any such interference proceedings or other priority or inventorship disputes. Such licenses may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or may be non-exclusive. If we are unable to obtain and maintain such licenses, we may need to cease the development, manufacture, and commercialization of one or more of the product candidates we may develop. The loss of exclusivity or the narrowing of our patent application claims could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other government fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process and following the issuance of a patent. While an inadvertent lapse can in some cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Noncompliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market with similar or identical products or platforms, which could have a material adverse effect on our business prospects and financial condition.

We may not be able to pursue generic coverage of our product candidates or MAP drug discovery engine outside of the United States. Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but where enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our product candidates and in jurisdictions where we do not have any issued patents our patent applications or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Our patent portfolio is at the very early stage. We will need to decide whether and in which jurisdictions to pursue protection for the various inventions in our portfolio prior to applicable deadlines.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biopharmaceutical products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of any patents we may own or in-license in the future or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce any rights we may have in our patent applications or any patents we may own or in-license in the future in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put any patents we may own or in-license in the future at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we are forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents we may own or license in the future that are relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects may be adversely affected.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of any of our current or future product candidates we may develop, one or more U.S. patents we may own or in-license in the future may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent term extension of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. However, we may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents, or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to

obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is shorter than what we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following expiration of any patents that issue from our patent applications, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially harmed.

Our trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, diluted, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We intend to rely on both registration and common law protection for our trademarks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names or may be forced to stop using these names, which we need for name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. During the trademark registration process, we may receive Office Actions from the USPTO objecting to the registration of our trademark. Although we would be given an opportunity to respond to those objections, we may be unable to overcome such rejections. In addition, in the USPTO and in comparable agencies in many foreign jurisdictions, third parties are given an opportunity to oppose pending trademark applications and/or to seek the cancellation of registered trademarks. Opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademarks, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. If we are unable to obtain a registered trademark or establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights, whether owned or in-licensed, is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business, provide a barrier to entry against our competitors or potential competitors, or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. Moreover, if a third party has intellectual property rights that cover the practice of our technology, we may not be able to fully exercise or extract value from our intellectual property rights. The following examples are illustrative:

Should any of these events occur, they could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If a third party claims that we infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate its intellectual property rights, we may face a number of issues, including, but not limited to:

Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our operations or could otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. The occurrence of any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. Patents issued in the United States by law enjoy a presumption of validity that can be rebutted only with evidence that is “clear and convincing,” a heightened standard of proof. There may be issued third-party patents of which we are currently unaware with claims to compositions, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. Patent applications can take many years to issue. In addition, because some patent applications in the United States may be maintained in secrecy until the patents are issued, patent applications in the United States and many foreign jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, and publications in the scientific literature often lag behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that others have not filed patent applications covering our product candidates or technology. If any such patent applications issue as patents, and if such patents have priority over our patent applications or patents we may own or in-license, we may be required to obtain rights to such patents owned by third parties which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or may only be available on a non-exclusive basis. There may be currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. It is also possible that patents owned by third parties of which we are aware, but which we do not believe are relevant to our product candidates or other technologies, could be found to be infringed by our product candidates or other technologies. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. Moreover, we may fail to identify relevant patents or incorrectly conclude that a patent is invalid, not enforceable, exhausted, or not infringed by our activities. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of our product candidates, molecules used in or formed during the manufacturing process, or any final product itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize the product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire or they are finally determined to be held invalid or unenforceable. Similarly, if any third-party patent were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture or methods of use, including combination therapy or patient selection methods, the holders of any such patent may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the product candidate unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires or is finally determined to be held invalid or unenforceable. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, our ability to commercialize our product candidates may be impaired or delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business. Even if we obtain a license, it may be nonexclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patent applications or any patents we may own or in-license in the future is threatened, it

could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

Parties making claims against us may seek and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, could involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement, misappropriation or other violation against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign our infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We cannot predict whether any such license would be available at all or whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need or may choose to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize our product candidates, which could harm our business significantly.

Competitors may infringe any patents we may own or in-license in the future. In addition, any patents we may own or in-license also may become involved in inventorship, priority, validity or unenforceability disputes. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that one or more of any patents we may own or in-license in the future is not valid or is unenforceable or that the other party’s use of our technology that may be patented falls under the safe harbor to patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1). There is also the risk that, even if the validity of these patents is upheld, the court may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that any patents we may own or in-license in the future do not cover the technology in question or that such third party’s activities do not infringe our patent applications or any patents we may own or in-license in the future. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of any patents we may own or in-license in the future at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign our infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing, or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

Post-grant proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the validity or priority of inventions with respect to our patent applications or any patents we may own or in-license in the future. These proceedings are expensive and an unfavorable outcome could result in a loss our current patent rights and could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. In addition to potential USPTO review proceedings, we may become a party to patent opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office, or EPO, or similar proceedings in other foreign patent offices, where either our foreign patents are challenged. The costs of these opposition or similar proceedings could be substantial, and may result in a loss of scope of some claims or a loss of the entire patent. An unfavorable result at the USPTO, EPO or other patent office may result in the loss of our right to exclude others from practicing one or more of our inventions in the relevant country or jurisdiction, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Litigation or post-grant proceedings may result in a decision adverse to our interests and, even if we are successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. We may not be able to prevent, misappropriation of our trade secrets or confidential information, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

We may not be able to detect infringement against any patents we may own or in-license in the future. Even if we detect infringement by a third party of any patents we may own or in-license in the future, we may choose not to pursue litigation against or settlement with the third party. If we later sue such third party for patent infringement, the third party may have certain legal defenses available to it, which otherwise would not be available except for the delay between when the infringement was first detected and when the suit was brought. Such legal defenses may make it impossible for us to enforce any patents we may own or in-license against such third party.

We may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in any patents we may own or in-license in the future, trade secrets, or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of employees, consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates or other technologies. We generally enter into confidentiality and intellectual property assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, and contractors. These agreements generally provide that inventions conceived by the party in the course of rendering services to us will be our exclusive property. However, those agreements may not be honored and may not effectively assign intellectual property rights to us. Moreover, there may be some circumstances, where we are unable to negotiate for such ownership rights. Disputes regarding ownership or inventorship of intellectual property can also arise in other contexts, such as collaborations and sponsored research. If we are subject to a dispute challenging our rights in or to patents or other intellectual property, such a dispute could be expensive and time consuming. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship of any patents we may own or in-license in the future, trade secrets or other intellectual property. If we were unsuccessful, in addition to paying monetary damages, we could lose valuable rights in intellectual property that we regard as our own, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, intellectual property that is important to our product candidates and other technologies. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We have received confidential and proprietary information from third parties. In addition, as is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, we employ individuals who were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors, in some cases until recently. We may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed confidential information or trade secrets of these third parties or our employees’ former employers or our consultants’ or contractors’ current or former clients or customers. In addition, we have been and may in the future be subject to claims that we caused an employee to breach the terms of his or her non-competition or non-solicitation agreement. Litigation or arbitration may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims and possible aftermath could result in substantial cost and be a distraction to our management and employees. Any litigation or the threat thereof may adversely affect our ability to hire employees. A loss of key personnel or their work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize product candidates, which could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments, and, if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. This type of litigation or proceeding could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce our resources available for development activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their substantially greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other intellectual property related proceedings could adversely affect our ability to compete in the marketplace.

We utilize and depend upon independent investigators and collaborators, such as medical institutions, CROs, contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, and strategic partners to conduct and support our preclinical studies and clinical trials under agreements with us. We have to negotiate budgets and contracts with CROs, trial sites and CMOs and we may not be able to do so on favorable terms, which may result in delays to our development timelines and increased costs. We will rely heavily on these third parties over the course of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and we control only certain aspects of their activities. As a result, we will have less direct control over the conduct, timing and completion of these preclinical studies and clinical trials and the management of data developed through preclinical studies and clinical trials than would be the case if we were relying entirely upon our own staff. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and these third parties are required to comply with GCPs, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP regulations, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that, upon inspection, such regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with the GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with pharmaceutical product produced under cGMP regulations and will require a large number of test patients. Our failure or any failure by these third parties to comply with these regulations or to recruit a sufficient number of patients may require us to

repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be implicated if any of these third parties violates federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws.

Any third parties conducting our clinical trials are not and will not be our employees and, except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing, clinical and non-clinical product candidates. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other drug development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval of or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

Switching or adding third parties to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials involves substantial cost and requires extensive management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new third party commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines.

We may form or seek strategic alliances, create joint ventures or collaborations, or enter into additional licensing arrangements with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our development and commercialization efforts with respect to our product candidates and any future product candidates that we may develop. Any of these relationships may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders or disrupt our management and business.

In addition, we face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic partners and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Moreover, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic partnership or other alternative arrangements for our product candidates because they may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view our product candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety, potency, purity and efficacy and obtain marketing approval.

Further, collaborations involving our product candidates are subject to numerous risks, which may include the following:

As a result, if we enter into additional collaboration agreements and strategic partnerships or license our product candidates, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture, which could delay our timelines or otherwise adversely affect our business. We also cannot be certain that, following a strategic transaction or license, we will achieve the revenue or specific net income that justifies such transaction. Any delays in entering into new collaborations or strategic partnership agreements related to our product candidates could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates in certain geographies for certain indications, which would harm our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We do not currently own any facility that may be used as our clinical-scale manufacturing and processing facility and must currently rely on outside vendors to manufacture our product candidates. We have not yet caused our product candidates to be manufactured on a commercial scale and may not be able to do so for any of our product candidates.

Our anticipated reliance on a limited number of third-party manufacturers exposes us to a number of risks, including the following:

Each of these risks could delay or prevent the completion of our clinical trials or the approval of any of our product candidates by the FDA, result in higher costs or adversely impact commercialization of our product candidates. In addition, we will rely on third parties to perform certain specification tests on our product candidates prior to delivery to patients. If these tests are not appropriately done and test data are not reliable, patients could be put at risk of serious harm and the FDA could place significant restrictions on our company until deficiencies are remedied.

In order to commercially produce our products either at our own facility or at a third party’s facility, we will need to comply with the FDA’s cGMP regulations and guidelines. We may encounter difficulties in achieving quality control and quality assurance and may experience shortages in qualified personnel. We are subject to inspections by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities to confirm compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Any failure to follow cGMP or other regulatory requirements or delay, interruption or other issues that arise in the manufacture, fill-finish, packaging, or storage of our precision medicines as a result of a failure of our facilities or the facilities or operations of third parties to comply with regulatory requirements or pass any regulatory authority inspection could significantly impair our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates, including leading to significant delays in the availability of our precision medicines for our clinical trials or the termination of or suspension of a clinical trial, or the delay or prevention of a filing or approval of marketing applications for our product candidates. Significant non-compliance could also result in the imposition of sanctions, including warning or untitled letters, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, failure of regulatory authorities to grant marketing approvals for our product candidates, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could damage our reputation and our business.

Our research and development activities involve the controlled use of potentially hazardous substances, including chemical and biological materials, by our third-party manufacturers. Our manufacturers are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations in the United States governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of medical and hazardous materials. Although we believe that our manufacturers’ procedures for using, handling, storing and disposing of these materials comply with legally prescribed standards, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from medical or hazardous materials. As a result of any such contamination or injury, we may incur liability or local, city, state or federal authorities may curtail the use of these materials and interrupt our business operations. In the event of an accident, we could be held liable for damages or penalized with fines, and the liability could exceed our resources. We do not have any insurance for liabilities arising from medical or hazardous materials. Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations is expensive, and current or future environmental regulations may impair our research, development and production efforts, which could harm our business, prospects, financial condition or results of operations.

Our ability to compete in the highly competitive biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified managerial, scientific and medical personnel. We are highly dependent on our management, scientific and medical personnel, including our President and Chief Executive Officer, our Chief Business Officer & Interim Chief Financial Officer, Chief Scientific Officer, and Interim Chief Medical Officer. Our Interim Chief Medical Officer, Karsten Witt, M.D., is not our employee and provides services under a consulting agreement. We face a variety of risks and uncertainties relating to management transition, including diversion of management attention from business concerns, failure to retain other key personnel or loss of institutional knowledge. In addition, the loss of the services of any of our executive officers, other key employees and other scientific and medical advisors, and an inability to find suitable replacements could result in delays in product development and harm our business.

We conduct our operations at our facilities in Cambridge, MA, New York, NY, and Stony Brook, NY. The Massachusetts region is headquarters to many other biopharmaceutical companies and many academic and research institutions. Competition for skilled personnel in our market is intense and may limit our ability to hire and retain highly qualified personnel on acceptable terms or at all. Changes to U.S. immigration and work authorization laws and regulations, including those that restrain the flow of scientific and professional talent, can be significantly affected by political forces and levels of economic activity. Our business may be materially adversely affected if legislative or administrative changes to immigration or visa laws and regulations impair our hiring processes and goals or projects involving personnel who are not U.S. citizens.

To encourage valuable employees to remain at our company, in addition to salary and cash incentives, we have provided stock options that vest over time. The value to employees of stock options that vest over time may be significantly affected by movements in our stock price that are beyond our control, and may at any time be insufficient to counteract more lucrative offers from other companies. Despite our efforts to retain valuable employees, members of our management, scientific and development teams may terminate their employment with us on short notice. Although we have employment agreements with our key employees, these employment agreements provide for at-will employment, which means that any of our employees could leave our employment at any time, with or without notice. Our success also depends on our ability to continue to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled junior, mid-level and senior managers as well as junior, mid-level and senior scientific and medical personnel.

As of December 31, 2021, we had 86 full-time employees. We intend to hire new employees to conduct our research and development activities in the future. Any delay in hiring such new employees could result in delays in our research and development activities and would harm our business. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, and as we transition into operating as a public company, we expect to need additional managerial, operational, sales, marketing, financial and other personnel, as well as additional facilities to expand our operations. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth, and our management may also have to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from day-to-day activities in order to devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities.

We currently rely, and for the foreseeable future will continue to rely, in substantial part on certain independent organizations, advisors and consultants to provide certain services, including substantially all aspects of regulatory approval, clinical trial management and manufacturing. There can be no assurance that the services of independent organizations, advisors and consultants will continue to be available to us on a timely basis when needed, or that we can find qualified replacements. In addition, if we are unable to effectively manage our outsourced activities or if the quality or accuracy of the services provided by consultants is compromised for any reason, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates or otherwise advance our business. There can be no assurance that we will be able to manage our existing consultants or find other competent outside contractors and consultants on economically reasonable terms, or at all.

If we are not able to effectively expand our organization by hiring new employees and expanding our groups of consultants and contractors, or we are not able to effectively build out new facilities to accommodate this expansion, we may not be able to successfully implement the tasks necessary to further develop and commercialize our product candidates and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development and commercialization goals.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our current and future CROs and other contractors and consultants may be vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, and telecommunication and electrical failures. While we have not experienced any such material system failure or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations. For example, the loss of data from completed or future preclinical studies and clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Likewise, we rely on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates and to conduct clinical trials, and similar events relating to their computer systems could also have a material adverse effect on our business. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the further development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed.

Our operations, and those of our CROs, CMOs and other contractors and consultants, could be subject to earthquakes, power shortages, telecommunications failures, water shortages, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, fires, extreme weather conditions, medical epidemics and other natural or man-made disasters or business interruptions, for which we are predominantly self-insured. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses. We rely on third-party manufacturers to produce our product candidates. Our ability to obtain clinical supplies of our product candidates could be disrupted if the operations of these suppliers are affected by a man-made or natural disaster or other business interruption.

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the planned clinical testing of our product candidates and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products. For example, we may be sued if our product candidates cause or are perceived to cause injury or are found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

Failure to obtain or retain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of products we develop, alone or with corporate collaborators. Although we have clinical trial insurance, our insurance policies also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We may have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. Even if our agreements with any future corporate collaborators entitle us to indemnification against losses, such indemnification may not be available or adequate should any claim arise.

Under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or IRC, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change” (generally defined as a greater than 50% change (by value) in its equity ownership by 5% stockholders over a three-year period), the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change taxable income may be limited. As a result of our most recent private placements and other transactions that have occurred over the past three years, we may have experienced, and may experience, an “ownership change.” We may also experience ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent shifts in our stock ownership. As of December 31, 2021, we had U.S. federal and state net operating loss carryforwards of $209,607 and U.S. federal research and development tax credit carryforwards of $5,439, each of which will begin to expire at various dates through 2039 and which could be limited if we experience an “ownership change.”

Beginning in 2022, the TCJA eliminates the option to deduct research and development expenditures currently and requires taxpayers to amortize them over five years pursuant to IRC Section 174. Although Congress is considering legislation that would defer the amortization requirement to later years, we have no assurance that the provision will be repealed or otherwise modified. Therefore, based on current assumptions, this could potentially increase the effective tax rate and decrease the Company's cash from operations beginning in 2022.

Similar to the trading prices of the common stock of other biopharmaceutical companies, the trading price of our common stock is subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which are beyond our control, including limited trading volume. In addition to the factors discussed in this “Risk Factors” section and elsewhere in this Annual Report, these factors include:

In addition, the stock market in general, and the market for biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. In the past, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against companies following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities. This type of litigation, if instituted, could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which would harm our business, financial condition, results of operation and future prospects.

We may seek additional capital through a combination of public and private equity offerings, debt financings, strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. The incurrence of indebtedness would result in increased fixed payment obligations and could involve certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. If we raise additional funds through strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies or product candidates, or grant licenses on terms unfavorable to us.

We currently anticipate that we will retain future earnings for the development, operation, and expansion of our business and do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. In addition, we may enter into agreements that prohibit us from paying cash dividends without prior written consent from our contracting parties, or which other terms prohibiting or limiting the amount of dividends that may be declared or paid on our common stock. Any return to stockholders will therefore be limited to the appreciation of their stock, which may never occur.

Under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can also delay adopting new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We have elected to not “opt out” of this exemption from complying with new or revised accounting standards and, therefore, we will adopt new or revised accounting standards at the time private companies adopt the new or revised accounting standard and will do so until such time that we either (i) irrevocably elect to “opt out” of such extended transition period or (ii) no longer qualify as an emerging growth company.

Even after we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company, we may still qualify as a “smaller reporting company,” which would allow us to continue to take advantage of many of the same exemptions from disclosure requirements, including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in this Annual Report and our periodic reports and proxy statements. We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

As a public company, we are facing, and will continue to face, increased legal, accounting, administrative and other costs and expenses that we did not incur as a private company. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, including the requirements of Section 404 thereof, as well as rules and regulations subsequently implemented by the SEC, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 and the rules and regulations promulgated and to be promulgated thereunder, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and the securities exchanges, impose additional reporting and other obligations on public companies. Compliance with public company requirements will increase costs and make certain activities more time-consuming. A number of those requirements mandate us to carry out

activities we have not done previously. In addition, additional expenses associated with SEC reporting requirements are being incurred. Furthermore, if any issues in complying with those requirements are identified (for example, if our auditors identify a material weakness or significant deficiency in the internal control over financial reporting), we could incur additional costs rectifying those issues, and the existence of those issues could adversely affect our reputation or investor perceptions of it. It is also more expensive to obtain and maintain director and officer liability insurance as a public company. Risks associated with our status as a public company may make it more difficult to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on the board of directors or as executive officers. The additional reporting and other obligations imposed by these rules and regulations will increase legal and financial compliance costs and the costs of related legal, accounting and administrative activities. These increased costs will require us to divert a significant amount of money that could otherwise be used to expand the business and achieve strategic objectives. Advocacy efforts by stockholders and third parties may also prompt additional changes in governance and reporting requirements, which could further increase costs.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market or the perception that these sales might occur could depress the market price of our common shares, could make it more difficult for you to sell your common stock at a time and price that you deem appropriate and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. We are unable to predict the effect that sales may have on the prevailing market price of our common stock.

The global credit and financial markets have experienced extreme volatility and disruptions in the past several years, including severely diminished liquidity and credit availability, declines in consumer confidence, declines in economic growth, increases in unemployment rates and uncertainty about economic stability. We believe that the state of global economic conditions are particularly volatile and uncertain, not only in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the potential global recession resulting therefrom, but also due to recent and expected shifts in political, legislative and regulatory conditions concerning, among other matters, international trade and taxation, and that an uneven recovery or a renewed global downturn may negatively impact our ability to conduct clinical trials on the scale and timelines anticipated. There can be no assurance that further deterioration in credit and financial markets and confidence in economic conditions will not occur. Our general business strategy may be adversely affected by any such economic downturn, volatile business or political environment or continued unpredictable and unstable market conditions. If the current equity and credit markets deteriorate, it may make obtaining any necessary debt or equity financing more difficult, more costly and more dilutive. Failure to secure any necessary financing in a timely manner and on favorable terms could have a material adverse effect on our growth strategy, financial performance and stock price and could require us to delay or abandon clinical development plans. In addition, there is a risk that one or more of our current service providers, manufacturers and other partners may not survive an economic downturn, which could directly affect our ability to attain our operating goals on schedule and on budget. To the extent that our profitability and strategies are negatively affected by downturns or volatility in general economic conditions, our business and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

The trading market for our common stock will depend in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. If one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrades our stock or publishes inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price may decline. If one or more of these analysts ceases coverage of our company or fails to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our stock could decrease, which might cause our stock price and trading volume to decline.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws contain provisions that could delay or prevent a change of control of our company or changes in our board of directors that our stockholders might consider favorable. Some of these provisions include:

In addition, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporate Law, which may prohibit certain business combinations with stockholders owning 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock. These antitakeover provisions and other provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws could make it more difficult for stockholders or potential acquirers to obtain control of our board of directors or initiate actions that are opposed by the then-current board of directors and could also delay or impede a merger, tender offer, or proxy contest involving our company. These provisions could also discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for you and other stockholders to elect directors of your choosing or cause us to take other corporate actions you desire. Any delay or prevention of a change of control transaction or changes in our board of directors could cause the market price of our common stock to decline.

Our bylaws provide that, unless we consent in writing to an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the sole and exclusive forum for any state law claims for (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, (ii) any action asserting a claim of breach of fiduciary duty owed by any of our directors, officers, and employees to us or our stockholders, (iii) any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the Delaware General Corporation Law, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or our amended and restated bylaws or (iv) any action asserting a claim that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine, in each case subject to the Court of Chancery having personal jurisdiction over the indispensable parties named as defendants therein. This exclusive forum provision will not apply to any causes of action arising under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act. In addition, our amended and restated bylaws will provide that any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our common stock is deemed to have notice of and consented to the

foregoing provisions. We recognize that the forum selection clause in our bylaws may impose additional litigation costs on stockholders in pursuing any such claims, particularly if the stockholders do not reside in or near the State of Delaware. Additionally, the forum selection clause in our amended and restated bylaws may limit our stockholders’ ability to bring a claim in a forum that they find favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and employees even though an action, if successful, might benefit our stockholders. The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware may also reach different judgments or results than would other courts, including courts where a stockholder considering an action may be located or would otherwise choose to bring the action, and such judgments may be more or less favorable to us than our stockholders.

Adequate internal control over financial reporting are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with effective disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to prevent or detect material misstatements due to fraud or error. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing conducted by us in connection with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or any subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. Inadequate internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our stock.

Implementing any appropriate changes to our internal controls may distract our officers and employees, entail substantial costs to modify our existing processes, and take significant time to complete. These changes may not, however, be effective in maintaining the adequacy of our internal controls, and any failure to maintain that adequacy, or consequent inability to produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis, could increase our operating costs and harm our business. In addition, investors’ perceptions that our internal controls are inadequate or that we are unable to produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis may harm our stock price and make it more difficult for us to effectively market and sell our service to new and existing customers.

In the event we decide to conduct clinical trials or continue to enroll subjects in our ongoing or future clinical trials, we may be subject to additional privacy restrictions. The collection, use, storage, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the EEA, including personal health data, is subject to the GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EEA, including the United States, and permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, including potential fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global revenues, whichever is greater. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. The GDPR increased our responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process where such processing is subject to the GDPR, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms to ensure compliance with the GDPR, including as implemented by individual countries. Compliance with the GDPR will be a rigorous and time-intensive process that

may increase our cost of doing business or require us to change our business practices, and despite those efforts, there is a risk that we may be subject to fines and penalties, litigation, and reputational harm in connection with our European activities. In addition, further to the UK’s exit from the EU on January 31, 2020, the GDPR ceased to apply in the UK at the end of the transition period on December 31, 2020. However, as of January 1, 2021, the UK’s European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 incorporated the GDPR (as it existed on December 31, 2020 but subject to certain UK specific amendments) into UK law, referred to as the UK GDPR. The UK GDPR and the UK Data Protection Act 2018 set out the UK’s data protection regime, which is independent from but aligned to the EU’s data protection regime. Non-compliance with the UK GDPR may result in monetary penalties of up to £17.5 million or 4% of worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. Although the UK is regarded as a third country under the EU’s GDPR, the European Commission has now issued a decision recognizing the UK as providing adequate protection under the EU GDPR and, therefore, transfers of personal data originating in the EU to the UK remain unrestricted. Like the EU GDPR, the UK GDPR restricts personal data transfers outside the UK to countries not regarded by the UK as providing adequate protection. The UK government has confirmed that personal data transfers from the UK to the EEA remain free flowing.

In addition, certain state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. By way of example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which went into effect on January 1, 2020, gives California residents expanded rights to access and delete their personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing, and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. The CCPA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability. Some observers have noted that the CCPA could mark the beginning of a trend toward more stringent privacy legislation in the United States, which could increase our potential liability and adversely affect our business.

Further, a new California privacy law, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), was passed by California voters on November 3, 2020. The CPRA will create additional obligations with respect to processing and storing personal information that are scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2023 (with certain provisions having retroactive effect to January 1, 2022). Additionally, some observers have noted that the CCPA and CPRA could mark the beginning of a trend toward more stringent privacy legislation in the U.S., which could increase our potential liability and adversely affect our business. Already, in the United States, we have witnessed significant developments at the state level. For example, on March 2, 2021, Virginia enacted the Consumer Data Protection Act (CDPA) and, on July 8, 2021, Colorado’s governor signed the Colorado Privacy Act (CPA), into law. The CDPA and the CPA will both become effective January 1, 2023. While the CDPA and CPA incorporate many similar concepts of the CCPA and CPRA, there are also several key differences in the scope, application, and enforcement of the law that will change the operational practices of regulated businesses. The new laws will, among other things, impact how regulated businesses collect and process personal sensitive data, conduct data protection assessments, transfer personal data to affiliates, and respond to consumer rights requests.

A number of other states have proposed new privacy laws, some of which are similar to the above discussed recently passed laws. Such proposed legislation, if enacted, may add additional complexity, variation in requirements, restrictions and potential legal risk, require additional investment of resources in compliance programs, impact strategies and the availability of previously useful data and could result in increased compliance costs and/or changes in business practices and policies. The existence of comprehensive privacy laws in different states in the country would make our compliance obligations more complex and costly and may increase the likelihood that we may be subject to enforcement actions or otherwise incur liability for noncompliance.

In addition, many jurisdictions outside of Europe are also considering and/or enacting comprehensive data protection legislation. For example, as of August 2020, the Brazilian General Data Protection Law imposes stringent requirements similar to GDPR with respect to personal information collected from individuals in Brazil.

In China, there have also been recent significant developments concerning privacy and data security. On June 10, 2021, the Standing Committee of the PRC National People’s Congress published the Data Security Law of the People’s Republic of China (the “Data Security Law”), which took effect on September 1, 2021. The Data Security Law requires data processing (which includes the collection, storage, use, processing, transmission, provision and publication of data), to be conducted in a legitimate and proper manner. The Data Security Law imposes data security and privacy obligations on entities and individuals carrying out data processing activities and also introduces a data classification and hierarchical protection system based on the importance of data in economic and social development and the degree of harm it may cause to national security, public interests, or legitimate rights and interests of individuals or organizations if such data are tampered with, destroyed, leaked, illegally acquired or illegally used. The appropriate level of protection measures is required to be taken for each respective category of data.

Also in China, on August 20, 2021, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the PRC promulgated the Personal Information Protection Law, which took effect on November 1, 2021. The Personal Information Protection Law raises the protection requirements for processing personal information, and many specific requirements of the Personal Information Protection Law remain to be clarified. We may be required to make further significant adjustments to our business practices to comply with the personal information protection laws and regulations in China including the Personal Information Protection Law.

Compliance with U.S. and international data protection laws and regulations could require us to take on more onerous obligations in our contracts, restrict our ability to collect, use and disclose data, or in some cases, impact our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions. Failure to comply with U.S. and international data protection laws and regulations could result in government enforcement actions (which could include civil or criminal penalties), private litigation or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business. Moreover, clinical trial subjects about whom we or our potential collaborators obtain information, as well as the providers who share this information with us, may contractually limit our ability to use and disclose the information. Claims that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights, failed to comply with data protection laws, or breached our contractual obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time consuming to defend and could result in adverse publicity that could harm our business.

Recent or future patent reform legislation could also increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of any patents we may own or in-license in the future. The United States has enacted and implemented wide-ranging patent reform legislation. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or America Invents Act, was signed into law, which includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art, may affect patent litigation, establish a new post-grant review system and switch the U.S. patent

The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state, and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department. Changes to tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect us or holders of our common stock. In recent years, many such changes have been made and changes are likely to continue to occur in the future. Future changes in tax laws could have a material adverse effect on our business, cash flow, financial condition or results of operations. We urge investors to consult with their legal and tax advisers regarding the implications of potential changes in tax laws on an investment in our common stock.

Risks related to cybersecurity

We rely on information technology systems that we or our third-party providers operate to process, transmit and store electronic information in our day-to-day operations. In connection with our MAP drug discovery engine and product discovery efforts, we may collect and use a variety of personal data, such as name, mailing address, email addresses, phone number and clinical trial information. A successful cyberattack could result in the theft or destruction of intellectual property, data, or other misappropriation of assets, or otherwise compromise our confidential or proprietary information and disrupt our operations. Cyberattacks are increasing in their frequency, sophistication and intensity, and have become increasingly difficult to detect. Cyberattacks could include wrongful conduct by hostile foreign governments, industrial espionage, wire fraud and other forms of cyber fraud, the deployment of harmful malware, denial-of-service, social engineering fraud or other means to threaten data security, confidentiality, integrity and availability. A successful cyberattack could cause serious negative consequences for us, including, without limitation, the disruption of operations, the misappropriation of confidential business information, including financial information, trade secrets, financial loss and the disclosure of corporate strategic plans. Although we devote resources to protect our information systems, we realize that cyberattacks are a threat, and there can be no assurance that our efforts will prevent information security breaches that would result in business, legal, financial or reputational harm to us, or would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. Any failure to prevent

or mitigate security breaches or improper access to, use of, or disclosure of our clinical data or patients’ personal data could result in significant liability under state (e.g., state breach notification laws), federal (e.g., HIPAA, as amended by HITECH), and international law (e.g., the GDPR) and may cause a material adverse impact to our reputation, affect our ability to conduct new studies and potentially disrupt our business.

Some cyber security incidents may be very difficult to prevent. For example, supply chain incidents involving previously unknown vulnerabilities in widely-used software are becoming increasingly common, of which the recent SolarWinds and Log4j incidents are examples. While we are not currently aware of any impact from supply chain vulnerabilities including but not necessarily limited to SolarWinds and Log4j, these are recent events, and the full scope of the attacks are not yet known. Therefore, there is residual risk that we may experience a security breach arising from the SolarWinds, Log4j, and other supply chain vulnerabilities.

Further, while we maintain insurance coverage, we cannot assure that such coverage will be adequate or otherwise protect us from or adequately mitigate liabilities or damages with respect to claims, costs, expenses, litigation, fines, penalties, business loss, data loss, regulatory actions or material adverse effects arising out of our privacy and security practices, or that such coverage will continue to be available on acceptable terms or at all. The market for cyber insurance is tightening, and coverage for ransomware, data breaches, and other types of cyberattacks may be reduced or eliminated. The successful assertion of one or more large claims against us that exceeds our available insurance coverage, or results in changes to our insurance policies (including premium increases or the imposition of large deductible or co-insurance requirements), could have an adverse effect on our business. In addition, we cannot be sure that our existing insurance coverage will continue to be available on acceptable terms or that our insurers will not deny coverage as to any future claim.

Although we devote resources to protect our information systems, we realize that cyberattacks are a threat, and there can be no assurance that our efforts will prevent information security breaches that would result in business, legal, financial or reputational harm to us, or would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. Any failure to prevent or mitigate security breaches or improper access to, use of, or disclosure of our clinical data or patients’ personal data could result in significant liability under state (e.g., state breach notification laws), federal (e.g., HIPAA, as amended by HITECH), and international law (e.g., the GDPR) and may cause a material adverse impact to our reputation, affect our ability to conduct new studies and potentially disrupt our business.

In addition, the computer systems of various third parties on which we rely, including our CROs and other contractors, consultants and law and accounting firms, may sustain damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, data breaches, phishing attacks, cybercriminals, natural disasters (including hurricanes and earthquakes), terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. We rely on our third-party providers to implement effective security measures and identify and correct for any such failures, deficiencies or breaches. If we or our third-party providers fail to maintain or protect our information technology systems and data integrity effectively or fail to anticipate, plan for or manage significant disruptions to our information technology systems, we or our third-party providers could have difficulty preventing, detecting and controlling such cyber-attacks and any such attacks could result in losses described above as well as disputes with physicians, patients and our partners, regulatory sanctions or penalties, increases in operating expenses, expenses or lost revenues or other adverse consequences, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, prospects and cash flows. Any failure by such third parties to prevent or mitigate security breaches or improper access to or disclosure of such information could have similarly adverse consequences for us. If we are unable to prevent or mitigate the impact of such security or data privacy breaches, we could be exposed to litigation and governmental investigations, which could lead to a potential disruption to our business.

None.

We lease a facility containing approximately 25,578 square feet of office space for our principal office, which is located at One Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142. The lease expires on August 31, 2028, subject to an option to extend the lease for five additional years.

We also lease approximately 18,120 square feet of office and laboratory space at 430 East 29th Street, New York, New York 10016. The lease expires on June 30, 2032, subject to an option to extend the lease for five additional years. We believe that our current facilities are sufficient to meet our current and near term needs.

From time to time, we may become involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business. We are not currently aware of any such proceedings or claims that we believe will have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.

Not applicable.

Our common stock trades under the symbol “BDTX” on the Nasdaq Global Select Market and has been publicly traded since January 30, 2020. Prior to this time, there was no public market for our common stock.

As of February 28, 2022, there were approximately 34 holders of record of shares of our common stock. This number does not include stockholders for whom shares are held in “nominee” or “street” name.

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain any future earnings to fund the development and expansion of our business, and therefore we do not anticipate paying cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. Any future determination to pay dividends will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on our results of operations, financial condition, capital requirements, contractual restrictions and other factors deemed relevant by our board of directors.

The information required by Item 5 of Form 10-K regarding equity compensation plans is incorporated herein by reference to Item 12 of Part III of this Annual Report.

We did not purchase any of our registered equity securities during the period covered by this Annual Report.

We are a precision oncology medicine company pioneering the discovery and development of MasterKey therapies. We target undrugged oncogenic driver mutations in patients with genetically defined cancers. The foundation of our company is built upon a deep understanding of cancer genetics, protein structure and function, and medicinal chemistry. Our proprietary technology platform, which we refer to as our Mutation-Allostery-Pharmacology, or MAP, drug discovery engine, is designed to allow us to analyze population-level genetic sequencing data to discover oncogenic mutations that promote cancer across tumor types. Our goal is to identify families of mutations that can be inhibited with MasterKey therapies thereby providing precision oncology to greater numbers of patients with genetically defined tumors.

We have designed our clinical-stage product candidates, BDTX-1535 and BDTX-189, to potently and selectively inhibit families of oncogenic mutations which occur across a range of tumor types that affect the ErbB-1 epidermal growth factor receptor, or EGFR, and in the case of BDTX-189 also affect the tyrosine-protein kinase ErbB-2, or HER2. We have designed these product candidates to bind to the active site of these mutant kinases and inhibit their function. BDTX-1535 and BDTX-189 are also designed to spare normal, or wild type, EGFR (EGFR WT), which we believe will improve upon the toxicity profiles of current ErbB family inhibitors. We are also leveraging our MAP drug discovery engine to identify other families of non-canonical mutations in validated oncogenes beyond the ErbB family, which has the potential to expand the reach of targeted therapies.

Since our inception in 2014, we have devoted substantially all of our efforts and financial resources to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, discovering product candidates and securing related intellectual property rights while conducting research and development activities for our programs. We do not have any products approved for sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales. We may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable product. We have not yet successfully completed any pivotal clinical trials, obtained any regulatory approvals, manufactured a commercial-scale drug, or conducted sales and marketing activities.

In July 2020, we were granted Fast Track designation for BDTX-189 for the treatment of adult patients with solid tumors harboring an allosteric human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) mutation or an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or HER2 Exon 20 insertion mutation who have progressed following prior treatment and who have no satisfactory treatment options.

To date, we have funded our operations with proceeds from the sale of preferred stock and common stock. Since inception we have incurred significant operating losses. Our net losses were $125.6 million and $67.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $243.8 million. Our ability to generate product revenue sufficient to achieve profitability will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of one or more of our current or future product candidates. We expect that our expenses and capital requirements will increase substantially in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly if and as we:

As a result, we will need substantial additional funding to support our continuing operations and pursue our growth strategy. Until such time as we can generate significant revenue from product sales, if ever, we expect to finance our operations through the sale of equity, debt financings or other capital sources, which may include collaborations with other companies or other strategic transactions. We may be unable to raise additional funds or enter into such other agreements or arrangements when needed on favorable terms, or at all. If we fail to raise capital or enter into such agreements as and when needed, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development and commercialization of one or more of our product candidates or delay our pursuit of potential in-licenses or acquisitions.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with product development, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when or if we will be able to achieve or maintain profitability. Even if we are able to generate product sales, we may not become profitable. If we fail to become profitable or are unable to sustain profitability on a continuing basis, then we may be unable to continue our operations at planned levels and be forced to reduce or terminate our operations.

As of December 31, 2021, we had cash, cash equivalents and investments of $209.8 million, which we believe will fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into 2024. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could exhaust our available capital resources sooner than we expect. See “—Liquidity and capital resources.” To finance our operations beyond that point, we will need to raise additional capital, which cannot be assured. If we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development or commercialization of our product candidates or other research and development initiatives.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has presented and continues to present a substantial public health and economic challenge around the world, and to date has led to the implementation of various responses, including government-imposed quarantines, stay-at-home orders, travel restrictions, mandated business closures and other public health safety measures.

We have been closely monitoring the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on all aspects of our business, including how it has and may continue to impact our operations and the operations of our suppliers, vendors and business partners, and may take further precautionary and preemptive actions as may be required by federal, state or local authorities. In addition, we have taken steps to minimize the current environment’s impact on our business and strategy, including devising contingency plans and securing additional resources from third party service providers. For the safety of our employees and families, we have introduced enhanced safety measures for scientists to be present in our labs and increased the use of third party service providers for the conduct of certain experiments and

studies for research programs. Certain of our third party service providers have also experienced shutdowns or other business disruptions. We do not yet know the full extent of potential delays or impacts on our business, our clinical trials, our research programs, healthcare systems or the global economy and we cannot presently predict the scope and severity of any potential business shutdowns or disruptions. In particular, our ability to conduct our clinical trials in a timely manner that meets our current projected timelines could be adversely impacted. Potential COVID-19-associated risks include delays in patient recruitment and principal investigator availability, clinical trial site shutdowns or other interruptions and potential limitations on the quality, completeness and interpretability of data we are able to collect. Additionally, our drug product supply chain, early stage research & development programs and activities and other aspects of our business operations could be negatively impacted by the pandemic and COVID-19-related delays or disruptions.

Beyond the impact on our pipeline, the extent to which COVID-19 ultimately impacts our business, results of operations and financial condition will depend on future developments, which, despite progress in vaccination efforts, remain highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, such as the duration of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, new strains of the virus, including the Delta and Omicron variants and any future variants that may emerge, which may impact rates of infection and vaccination efforts, developments or perceptions regarding the safety of vaccines, new information that may emerge concerning the severity of COVID-19 and the effectiveness of any additional preventative and protective actions taken to contain COVID-19 or treat its impact in the short and long term, among others. While certain measures have been relaxed in certain parts of the world as increasing numbers of people have received COVID-19 vaccines, others have remained in place with some areas continuing to experience renewed outbreaks and surges in infection rates. The extent to which such measures are removed or new measures are put in place will depend upon how the pandemic continues to evolve, as well as the distribution of available vaccines, the rates at which they are administered and the emergence of new variants of the virus. If we or any of the third parties with whom we engage, however, were to experience any additional shutdowns or other prolonged business disruptions, our ability to conduct our business in the manner and on the timelines presently planned could be materially or negatively affected, which could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition. The estimates of the impact on our business may change based on new information that may emerge concerning COVID-19 and the actions to contain it or treat its impact and the economic impact on local, regional, national and international markets.

To date, we have not generated any revenue from any sources, including from product sales, and we do not expect to generate any revenue from the sale of products in the foreseeable future. If our development efforts for our product candidates are successful and result in regulatory approval, or license agreements with third parties, we may generate revenue in the future from product sales. However, there can be no assurance as to when we will generate such revenue, if at all.

Research and development expenses consist primarily of costs incurred for our research activities, including our drug discovery efforts and the development of our product candidates. We expense research and development costs as incurred, which include:

We recognize external development costs based on an evaluation of the progress to completion of specific tasks using information provided to us by our service providers. This process involves reviewing open contracts and purchase orders, communicating with our personnel to identify services that have been performed on our behalf and estimating the level of service performed and the associated cost incurred for the service when we have not yet been invoiced or otherwise notified of actual costs. Any nonrefundable advance payments that we make for goods or services to be received in the future for use in research and development activities are recorded as prepaid expenses. Such amounts are expensed as the related goods are delivered or the related services are performed, or until it is no longer expected that the goods will be delivered or the services rendered.

Our direct external research and development expenses consist primarily of external costs, such as fees paid to outside consultants, CROs, CMOs and research laboratories in connection with our preclinical development, process development, manufacturing and clinical development activities. Our direct research and development expenses also include fees incurred under license, acquisition and option agreements. We do not allocate employee costs, costs associated with our discovery efforts, laboratory supplies, and facilities, including depreciation or other indirect costs, to specific programs because these costs are deployed across multiple programs and, as such, are not separately classified. We use internal resources primarily to conduct our research and discovery as well as for managing our preclinical development, process development, manufacturing and clinical development activities. These employees work across multiple programs and, therefore, we do not track their costs by program.

Research and development activities are central to our business model. Product candidates in later stages of clinical development generally have higher development costs than those in earlier stages of clinical development, primarily due to the increased size and duration of later-stage clinical trials. As a result, we expect that our research and development expenses will increase substantially over the next several years as we continue our clinical trials for BDTX-189, as well as conduct other preclinical and clinical development, including submitting regulatory filings for our other product candidates, including BDTX-1535.

We expect our discovery research efforts and our related personnel costs will increase and, as a result, we expect our research and development expenses, including costs associated with stock-based compensation, will increase above historical levels. In addition, we may incur additional expenses related to milestone and royalty payments payable to third parties with whom we may enter into license, acquisition and option agreements to acquire the rights to future product candidates.

At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate or know the nature, timing and costs of the efforts that will be necessary to complete the preclinical and clinical development of any of our product candidates or when, if ever, material net cash inflows may commence from any of our product candidates. The successful development and commercialization of our product candidates is highly uncertain. This uncertainty is due to the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with product development and commercialization, including the uncertainty of the following:

Any changes in the outcome of any of these variables with respect to the development of our product candidates in preclinical and clinical development could mean a significant change in the costs and timing associated with the development of these product candidates. For example, if the FDA or another regulatory authority were to delay our planned start of clinical trials or require us to conduct clinical trials or other testing beyond those that we currently expect or if we experience significant delays in enrollment in any of our planned clinical trials, we could be required to expend significant additional financial resources and time on the completion of clinical development of that product candidate.

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries and benefits, travel and stock-based compensation expense for personnel in executive, business development, finance, human resources, legal, information technology, pre-commercial and support personnel functions. General and administrative expenses also include direct and allocated facility-related costs as well as insurance costs and professional fees for legal, patent, consulting, investor and public relations, accounting and audit services.

Research and development expenses were $96.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to $48.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2020. The following table summarizes our research and development expenses for the year ended December 31, 2021 and 2020.

The increase of $48.6 million was primarily due to an increase of $16.7 million in other research programs and platform development as we increased research activities related to our platform and new programs. In addition, we incurred an additional $10.0 million and $6.2 million for BDTX-189 and BDTX-1535, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to the year ended December 31, 2020. Personnel expenses increased $11.7 million as we have increased our headcount and related personnel expenses. Facility costs increased $2.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to the year ended December 31, 2020 due to the signing of a new lease.

General and administrative expenses were $30.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to $21.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2020. The increase of $8.7 million was primarily due to an increase in personnel expenses of $6.2 million related to an increase in headcount and external fees of $1.1 million related to legal and other professional fees due to operating as a public company.

Other income was $1.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to other income of $2.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2020. The decrease was primarily attributable to amortization of premium on investments increasing at a higher rate in 2021 compared to 2020 and interest income staying relatively flat.

Since our inception, we have not generated any revenue from any product sales or any other sources and have incurred significant operating losses and negative cash flows from our operations. We have not yet commercialized any of our product candidates, and we do not expect to generate revenue from sales of any product candidates for several years, if at all. We have funded our operations to date primarily with proceeds from the sale of preferred stock. On February 3, 2020, we completed an IPO of 12,174,263 shares of our common stock, including the exercise in full by the underwriters of their option to purchase up to 1,587,947 additional shares of common stock, for aggregate gross proceeds of $231.3 million. We received $212.1 million in net proceeds after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and other estimated offering expenses payable by us. Through December 31, 2021, we had received net cash proceeds of $200.6 million from previous sales of our preferred stock and as of December 31, 2021, we had cash, cash equivalents and investments of $209.8 million.

During the year ended December 31, 2021, we used cash in operating activities of $100.1 million, primarily resulting from our net loss of $125.6 million, partially offset by the non-cash charge related to stock compensation expense of $14.0 million, and an increase in prepaid expenses and other current assets.

During the year ended December 31, 2020, we used cash in operating activities of $52.1 million, primarily resulting from our net loss of $67.3 million, partially offset by the non-cash charge related to stock compensation expense of $7.8 million, an increase in prepaid expenses and other current assets due to payments for research services and a decrease in deferred offering costs.

Changes in accounts payable and accrued expenses in all periods were generally due to growth in our business, the advancement of our product candidates, and the timing of vendor invoicing and payments.

During the year ended December 31, 2021, we had cash provided by investing activities of $130.6 million primarily from the sales and maturities of investments.

During the year ended December 31, 2020, we used cash in investing activities of $281.7 million for the purchase of investments.

During the year ended December 31, 2021, we had cash provided by financing activities of $0.7 million, consisting of proceeds from the exercise of stock options.

During the year ended December 31, 2020, we had cash provided by financing activities of $214.9 million, consisting primarily of proceeds from the IPO.

We expect our expenses to increase substantially in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we advance the preclinical activities and clinical trials of our product candidates. In addition, we expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company, including significant legal, accounting, investor relations and other expenses. The timing and amount of our operating expenditures will depend largely on our ability to:

As of December 31, 2021, we had cash, cash equivalents and investments of $209.8 million, which we believe will fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into 2024. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could utilize our available capital resources sooner than we expect. We anticipate that we will require additional capital as we seek regulatory approval of our product candidates and if we choose to pursue in-licenses or acquisitions of other product candidates. If we receive regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product manufacturing, sales, marketing and distribution, depending on where we choose to commercialize.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with research, development and commercialization of product candidates, we are unable to estimate the exact amount of our working capital requirements. Our future funding requirements will depend on and could increase significantly as a result of many factors, including:

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenue, we expect to finance our operations through a combination of public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic partnerships and alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest may be materially diluted, and the terms of such securities could include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a common stockholder. Debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include restrictive covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. In addition, debt financing would result in fixed payment obligations.

If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic partnerships and alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings or other arrangements when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our research, product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

Our consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States, or GAAP. The preparation of our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, costs and expenses. We base our estimates on historical experience, known trends and events and various other factors that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. We evaluate our estimates and assumptions on an ongoing basis. Our actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

While our significant accounting policies are described in more detail in Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements, we believe that the following accounting policies are those most critical to the judgments and estimates used in the preparation of our financial statements.

As part of the process of preparing our consolidated financial statements, we are required to estimate our accrued research and development expenses. This process involves reviewing open contracts and purchase orders, communicating with our applicable personnel to identify services that have been performed on our behalf and estimating the level of service performed and the associated cost incurred for the service when we have not yet been invoiced or otherwise notified of actual costs. The majority of our service providers invoice us in arrears for services performed, on a pre-determined schedule or when contractual milestones are met; however, some require advance payments. We make estimates of our accrued expenses as of each balance sheet date in the consolidated financial statements based on facts and circumstances known to us at that time. We periodically confirm the accuracy of the estimates with the service providers and make adjustments if necessary. Examples of estimated accrued research and development expenses include fees paid to:

We base our expenses related to preclinical studies and clinical trials on our estimates of the services received and efforts expended pursuant to quotes and contracts with multiple research institutions and CROs that supply, conduct and manage preclinical studies and clinical trials on our behalf. The financial terms of these agreements are subject to negotiation, vary from contract to contract and may result in uneven payment flows. There may be instances in which payments made to our vendors will exceed the level of services provided and result in a prepayment of the expense. Payments under some of these contracts depend on factors such as the successful enrollment of patients and the completion of clinical trial milestones. In accruing service fees, we estimate the time period over which services will be performed and the level of effort to be expended in each period. If the actual timing of the performance of services or the level of effort varies from the estimate, we adjust the accrual or the prepaid expense accordingly. Although we do not expect our estimates to be materially different from amounts actually incurred, our understanding of the status and timing of services performed relative to the actual status and timing of services performed may vary and may result in reporting amounts that are too high or too low in any particular period. To date, there have not been any material adjustments to our prior estimates of accrued research and development expenses.

We measure stock options and other stock-based awards granted to employees, non-employees and directors based on their fair value on the date of the grant and recognize the corresponding compensation expense of those awards over the requisite service period, which is generally the vesting period of the respective award. We have generally only issued stock options and restricted stock units with service-based vesting conditions and record the expense for these awards using the straight-line method. For stock options or restricted stock units issued with performance-based vesting conditions, the related stock compensation expense is recognized based on the grant date fair value when achievement of the performance condition is deemed probable. The graded-vesting method would apply to all stock-based awards with performance-based vesting conditions or to awards with both service-based and performance-based vesting conditions.

We have historically granted stock options with exercise prices equivalent to the fair value of our common stock as of the date of grant. For grants of restricted stock units, we base the fair value on the stock price as of the date of grant.

The Company accounts for stock-based awards granted to employees and non-employees at fair value, which is measured using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. The measurement date for the awards is generally the date of grant. Stock-based compensation costs are recognized as expenses over the requisite service period, which is generally the vesting period, on a straight-line basis for all time-vested awards.

We estimate the fair value of each stock option grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model, which uses as inputs the fair value of our common stock and assumptions we make for the volatility of our common stock, the expected term of our stock options, the risk-free interest rate for a period that approximates the expected term of our stock options and our expected dividend yield (see Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements).

A description of recently issued accounting pronouncements that may potentially impact our financial position and results of operations is disclosed in Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report.

The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 permits an “emerging growth company” such as us to take advantage of an extended transition period to comply with new or revised accounting standards applicable to public companies until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. We have elected to not “opt out” of this provision and, as a result, we will adopt new or revised accounting standards at the time private companies adopt the new or revised accounting standard and will do so until such time that we either (i) irrevocably elect to “opt out” of such extended transition period or (ii) no longer qualify as an emerging growth company.

We are also a “smaller reporting company” meaning that the market value of our stock held by non-affiliates is less than $700 million and our annual revenue was less than $100 million during the most recently completed fiscal year. We may continue to be a smaller reporting company if either (i) the market value of our stock held by non-affiliates is less than $250 million or (ii) our annual revenue was less than $100 million during the most recently completed fiscal year and the market value of our stock held by non-affiliates is less than $700 million. If we are a smaller reporting company at the time we cease to be an emerging growth company, we may continue to rely on exemptions from certain disclosure requirements that are available to smaller reporting companies. Specifically, as a smaller reporting company we may choose to present only the two most recent fiscal years of audited financial statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K and, similar to emerging growth companies, smaller reporting companies have reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation.

We are a smaller reporting company as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act and are not required to provide the information required under this item.

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Black Diamond Therapeutics, Inc. and its subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, and the related consolidated statements of operations, of stockholders’ equity and of cash flows for the years then ended, including the related notes (collectively referred to as the “consolidated financial statements”). In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s consolidated financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits of these consolidated financial statements in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

Black Diamond Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) is a precision oncology medicine company pioneering the discovery and development of MasterKey therapies. The Company was originally organized as a limited liability company in December 2014 under the name ASET Therapeutics LLC. In September 2016 the Company was converted to a corporation under the laws of the State of Delaware under the name ASET Therapeutics, Inc. The Company changed its name to Black Diamond Therapeutics, Inc. in January 2018. Since its inception, the Company has devoted substantially all of its efforts to raising capital, obtaining financing, and incurring research and development costs related to the development of its mutation, allostery, and pharmacology computational and drug discovery engine.

The Company is subject to risks and uncertainties common to early-stage companies in the biotechnology industry. There can be no assurance that the Company’s research and development will be successfully completed, that adequate protection for the Company’s technology will be obtained, that any products developed will obtain necessary government regulatory approval or that any products, if approved, will be commercially viable. The Company operates in an environment of rapid technological innovation and substantial competition from pharmaceutical and biotechnological companies. In addition, the Company is dependent upon the services of its employees, consultants and service providers. Even if the Company’s product development efforts are successful, it is uncertain when, if ever, the Company will realize significant revenue from product sales.

On January 21, 2020, the Company effected a 1-for-3.01581 reverse stock split of the Company’s common stock. All shares, stock options, warrants and per share information presented in the consolidated financial statements have been adjusted to reflect the reverse stock split on a retroactive basis for all periods presented. There was no change in the par value of the Company’s common stock.

On February 3, 2020, the Company completed an initial public offering (the “IPO”) of 12,174,263 shares of its common stock, including the exercise in full by the underwriters of their option to purchase up to 1,587,947 additional shares of common stock, for aggregate gross proceeds of $231,311 and its shares started trading on The Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker symbol “BDTX.” The Company received $212,101 in net proceeds after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and other estimated offering expenses payable by the Company. Upon closing of the IPO, all of the Company's outstanding shares of convertible preferred stock automatically converted into 21,499,770 shares of common stock.

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared on the basis of continuity of operations, realization of assets, and the satisfaction of liabilities and commitments in the ordinary course of business. Historically, the Company has funded its operations primarily with proceeds from the sale of convertible preferred stock. The Company expects to continue to generate operating losses for the foreseeable future.

As of March 17, 2022, the issuance date of the consolidated financial statements, the Company expects that its cash, cash equivalents and investments will be sufficient to fund its operating expenses and capital requirements into 2024.

The Company may seek additional funding through private or public equity financings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances and marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements. The Company may not be able to obtain financing on acceptable terms, or at all, and the Company may not be able to enter into collaborations or other arrangements. The terms of any financing may adversely affect the holdings or the rights of the Company's stockholders. If the Company is unable to obtain funding, the Company could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate some or all of its research and development programs, product portfolio expansion or commercialization efforts, which could adversely affect its business prospects. Although management continues to pursue these plans, there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in obtaining sufficient funding on terms acceptable to the Company to fund continuing operations, if at all.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continues to present a substantial public health and economic challenge around the world, and to date has led to the implementation of various responses, including government-imposed quarantines, stay-at-home orders, travel restrictions, mandated business closures and other public health safety measures.

The Company has been closely monitoring the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on all aspects of the Company’s business, including how it has impacted and may continue to impact the Company’s operations and the operations of its suppliers, vendors and business partners, and may take further precautionary and preemptive actions as may be required by federal, state or local authorities. In addition, the Company has taken steps to minimize the current environment’s impact on its business and strategy, including devising contingency plans and securing additional resources from third party service providers. Furthermore, for the safety of the Company’s employees and families, the Company has introduced enhanced safety measures for scientists to be present in its labs and increased the use of third party service providers for the conduct of certain experiments and studies for research programs. Certain of the Company’s third party service providers have also experienced shutdowns or other business disruptions. The Company does not yet know the full extent of potential delays or impacts on the Company’s business, clinical trials, research programs, healthcare systems or the global economy and cannot presently predict the scope and severity of any potential business shutdowns or disruptions but if we or any of the third parties with whom we engage were to experience prolonged business shutdowns or other disruptions, our ability to conduct our business in the manner and on the timelines presently planned could be materially and negatively affected, which could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition. The estimates of the impact on our business may change based on new information that may emerge concerning COVID-19 and the actions to contain it or treat its impact and the economic impact on local, regional, national and international markets.

The extent to which COVID-19 ultimately impacts the Company’s business, results of operations or financial condition will depend on future developments, which, despite progress in vaccination efforts, remain highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, such as the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, new strains of the virus which may impact rates of infection and vaccination efforts, developments or perceptions regarding the safety of vaccines, new information that may emerge concerning the severity of COVID-19, and any additional preventative and protective actions taken to contain the pandemic or treat its impact, among others. In addition, a resurgence or “additional waves” of COVID-19 cases could cause other widespread or more severe impacts depending on where infection rates are highest. While certain measures have been relaxed in certain parts of the world as increasing numbers of people have received COVID-19 vaccines, others have remained in place with some areas continuing to experience renewed outbreaks and surges in infection rates. The extent to which such measures are removed or new measures are put in place will depend upon how the pandemic evolves, as well as the distribution of available vaccines, the rates at which they are administered and the emergence of new variants of the virus.

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America ("GAAP") and include the accounts of the Company and its wholly owned subsidiaries, Black Diamond Therapeutics (Canada), Inc. and Black Diamond Therapeutics Security Corporation, after elimination of all significant intercompany accounts and transactions.

The preparation of the Company’s consolidated financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the reported amounts of expenses during the reporting periods. Significant estimates and assumptions reflected in these consolidated financial statements include, but are not limited to, the accrual of research and development expenses and the valuation of stock-based awards. The Company bases its estimates on historical experience, known trends and other market-specific or other relevant factors that it believes to be reasonable under the circumstances. Estimates are periodically reviewed in light of changes in circumstances, facts and experience. Changes in estimates are recorded in the period in which they become known. Actual results may differ from those estimates or assumptions.

The full extent to which the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic will directly or indirectly impact the Company’s business, results of operations and financial condition, including expenses, research and development costs and employee-related amounts, will depend on future developments that are highly uncertain, including as a result of new information that may emerge concerning COVID-19 and the actions taken to contain or treat COVID-19, as well as the economic impact on local, regional, national and international markets. The Company has considered the impact of COVID-19 on estimates within its financial statements and there may be changes to those estimates in future periods. As of the date of issuance of these consolidated financial statements, the Company has not experienced material business disruptions or incurred impairment losses in the carrying value of its assets as a result of the pandemic and is not aware of any specific related event or circumstance that would require it to update its estimates.

The Company considers events or transactions that occur after the balance sheet date but before the final financial statements are issued to provide additional evidence relative to certain estimates or to identify matters that require additional disclosure.

The functional currency for the Company’s wholly owned foreign subsidiary, Black Diamond Therapeutics (Canada), Inc. is the United States Dollar. Adjustments that arise from exchange rate changes on transactions denominated in a currency other than the local currency are included in other income (expense), net in the consolidated statements of operations, as incurred.

The Company classifies deposits in banks, money market funds and cash invested temporarily in various instruments with maturities of three months or less at the time of purchase as cash and cash equivalents. At December 31, 2021 and 2020, cash and cash equivalents includes cash on deposit at commercial banks and a money market fund that invests in U.S. Government securities.

Investments consist of marketable securities with original maturities greater than 90 days. The Company has classified its investments with maturities beyond one year as short-term, based on their highly liquid nature and because such marketable securities represent the investment of cash that is available for current operations. The Company considers its investment portfolio of marketable securities to be available-for-sale. Accordingly, these investments are recorded at fair value, which is based on quoted market prices. Unrealized gains and losses are reported as the accumulated other comprehensive items in stockholders’ equity. Amortization and accretion of premiums and discounts are recorded in other income (expense). Realized gains or losses on debt securities are included in interest income or interest expense, respectively.

If any adjustment to fair value reflects a decline in value of the investment, the Company considers all available evidence to evaluate the extent to which the decline is other than temporary and, if so, marks the investment to market on the Company’s statement of operations and comprehensive income (loss).

In connection with its operating lease commitments, the Company maintains certain balances for security deposits that are classified as restricted cash on the consolidated balance sheets. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the Company had $1,223 of restricted cash, which has been classified as a non-current asset on the consolidated balance sheet.

Financial instruments that potentially expose the Company to concentrations of credit risk consist primarily of cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities. The Company maintains accounts for all cash and cash equivalents at accredited financial institutions, in amounts that exceed federally insured limits. The Company does not believe that it is subject to unusual credit risk beyond the normal credit risk associated with commercial banking relationships.

When assets are retired or otherwise disposed of, the cost of assets disposed of and the related accumulated depreciation is removed from the accounts and any resulting gain or loss is included in the consolidated statements of operations in the period of disposal. Expenditures for repairs and maintenance are charged to expense as incurred.

Long-lived assets consist of property and equipment. Long-lived assets to be held and used are tested for recoverability whenever events or changes in business circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the assets may not be fully recoverable. Factors that the Company considers in deciding when to perform an impairment review include significant underperformance of the business in relation to expectations, significant negative industry or economic trends and significant changes or planned changes in the use of the assets. If an impairment review is performed to evaluate a long-lived asset group for recoverability, the Company compares forecasts of undiscounted cash flows expected to result from the use and eventual disposition of the long-lived asset group to its carrying value. An impairment loss would be recognized in loss from operations when estimated undiscounted future cash flows expected to result from the use of an asset group are less than its carrying amount. The impairment loss would be based on the excess of the carrying value of the impaired asset group over its fair value, determined based on discounted cash flows. The Company did not record any impairment losses on long-lived assets during the periods presented.

Certain assets and liabilities are carried at fair value under GAAP. Fair value is defined as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. Valuation techniques used to measure fair value must maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. Financial assets and liabilities carried at fair value are to be classified and disclosed in one of the following three levels of the fair value hierarchy, of which the first two are considered observable and the last is considered unobservable:

The carrying values of the Company’s prepaid expenses and other current assets, and accounts payable and accrued expenses approximate their fair values due to the short-term nature of these assets and liabilities.

The Company manages its operations as a single operating segment for the purposes of assessing performance and making operating decisions. The Company’s singular focus is the development of selective medicines for patients with genetically defined cancers driven by oncogenes activated by allosteric mutations.

Research and development costs are expensed as incurred. Research and development expenses consist of costs incurred to discover, research and develop drug candidates, including personnel expenses, stock-based compensation expense, allocated facility-related and depreciation expenses, third-party license fees and external costs of outside vendors engaged to conduct preclinical development activities. Non-refundable prepayments for goods or services that will be used or rendered for future research and development activities are recorded as prepaid expenses. Such amounts are recognized as an expense as the goods are delivered or the related services are performed, or until it is no longer expected that the goods will be delivered, or the services rendered.

The Company has entered into various research and development-related contracts with companies both inside and outside of the United States. The related costs are recorded as research and development expenses as incurred. The Company records accruals for estimated ongoing research costs. When evaluating the adequacy of the accrued liabilities, the Company analyzes progress of the studies, including the phase or completion of events, invoices received and contracted costs. Significant judgments and estimates are made in determining the accrued balances at the end of any reporting period. Actual results could differ materially from the Company’s estimates. The Company’s historical accrual estimates have not been materially different from the actual costs.

All patent-related costs incurred in connection with filing and prosecuting patent applications to operations are expensed as incurred due to the uncertainty about the recovery of the expenditure. Amounts incurred are classified as general and administrative expenses.

The Company measures all stock-based awards granted to employees, non-employees and directors based on the fair value on the date of grant and recognizes compensation expense of those awards over the requisite service period, which is generally the vesting period of the respective award. Generally, the Company issues stock options and restricted stock units with only service-based vesting conditions and records the expense for these awards using the straight-line method. For stock options or restricted stock units issued with performance-based vesting conditions, the stock compensation expense related to these awards is recognized based on the grant date fair value when achievement of the performance condition is deemed probable. The Company would apply the graded-vesting method to all stock-based awards with performance-based vesting conditions or to awards with both service-based and performance based vesting conditions. Forfeitures are accounted for as they occur.

The Company classifies stock-based compensation expense in its consolidated statements of operations in the same manner in which the award recipient’s payroll costs are classified or in which the award recipient’s service payments are classified.

The Company accounts for income taxes using the asset and liability method, which requires the recognition of deferred tax assets and liabilities for the expected future tax consequences of events that have been recognized in the consolidated financial statements or in the Company’s tax returns. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined on the basis of the differences between the financial statements and tax basis of assets and liabilities using enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which the differences are expected to reverse. Changes in deferred tax assets and liabilities are recorded in the provision for income taxes. The Company assesses the likelihood that its deferred tax assets will be recovered from future taxable income and, to the extent it believes, based upon the weight of available evidence, that it is more likely than not that all or a portion of the deferred tax assets will not be realized, a valuation allowance is established through a charge to income tax expense. Potential for recovery of deferred tax assets is evaluated by estimating the future taxable profits expected and considering prudent and feasible tax planning strategies.

The Company accounts for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in the consolidated financial statements by applying a two-step process to determine the amount of tax benefit to be recognized. First, the tax position must be evaluated to determine the likelihood that it will be sustained upon external examination by the taxing authorities. If the tax position is deemed more-likely-than-not to be sustained, the tax position is then assessed to determine the amount of benefit to recognize in the consolidated financial statements. The amount of the benefit that may be recognized is the largest amount that has a greater than 50% likelihood of being realized upon ultimate settlement. The provision for income taxes includes the effects of any resulting tax reserves, or unrecognized tax benefits, that are considered appropriate as well as the related net interest and penalties. To date, the Company has not taken any uncertain tax positions or recorded any reserves, interest or penalties.

Comprehensive loss is composed of net loss and other comprehensive income (loss). Other comprehensive income (loss) consists of unrealized gains and losses on investments.

The Company follows the two-class method when computing net income (loss) per share as the Company has issued shares that meet the definition of participating securities. The two-class method determines net income (loss) per share for each class of common and participating securities according to dividends declared or accumulated, and participation rights in undistributed earnings. The two-class method requires income available to common stockholders for the period to be allocated between common and participating securities based upon their respective rights to receive dividends as if all income for the period had been distributed.

Basic net income (loss) per share attributable to common stockholders is computed by dividing the net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders is computed by adjusting net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders to reallocate undistributed earnings based on the potential impact of dilutive securities. Diluted net income (loss) per share attributable to common stockholders is computed by dividing the diluted net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the period, including potential dilutive common stock. For purposes of this calculation, outstanding options, unvested restricted common stock and shares issuable under the employee stock purchase plan are considered potentially dilutive common stock and are excluded from the computation of net income (loss) per share when their effect is anti-dilutive. The Company reported a net loss attributable to common stockholders for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020.

The Company determines if an arrangement is a lease at contract inception. Operating lease assets represent the Company’s right to use an underlying asset for the lease term and operating lease liabilities represent the Company’s obligation to make lease payments arising from the lease. Operating lease assets and liabilities are recognized at the commencement date of the lease based upon the present value of lease payments over the lease term. When determining the lease term, the Company includes options to extend or terminate the lease when it is reasonably certain that the Company will exercise that option. Certain adjustments to the right-of-use asset may be required for items such as incentives received. The Company uses the implicit interest rate when readily determinable and uses the Company’s incremental borrowing rate when the implicit rate is not readily determinable based upon the information available at the commencement date in determining the present value of the lease payments.

The lease payments used to determine the Company’s operating lease assets may include lease incentives, stated rent increases and escalation clauses linked to rates of inflation, when determinable, and are recognized in the Company’s operating lease assets in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets.

The Company’s operating leases are reflected in the right-of-use operating asset; operating lease liability, current portion; and non-current operating lease liability in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets. Lease expense for minimum lease payments is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term. Short-term leases, defined as leases that have a lease term of 12 months or less at the commencement date, are excluded from this treatment and are recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease.

Variable lease payments are the amounts owed by the Company to a lessor that are not fixed, such as reimbursement for common area maintenance and utilities costs for facility leases and maintenance. Variable lease payments are expensed when incurred.

Assumptions made by the Company at the commencement date are re-evaluated upon occurrence of certain events, including a lease modification. A lease modification results in a separate contract when the modification grants the lessee an additional right of use not included in the original lease and when lease payments increase commensurate with the standalone price for the additional right of use. When a lease modification results in a separate contract, it is accounted for in the same manner as a new lease.

When developing fair value estimates, the Company maximizes the use of observable inputs and minimizes the use of unobservable inputs. When available, the Company uses quoted market prices to measure fair value. The valuation technique used to measure fair value for the Company's Level 1 and Level 2 assets is a market approach, using prices and other relevant information generated by market transactions involving identical or comparable assets. If market prices are not available, the fair value measurement is based on models that use primarily market-based parameters including yield curves, volatilities, credit ratings and currency rates. In certain cases where market rate assumptions are not available, the Company is required to make judgments about assumptions market participants would use to estimate the fair value of a financial instrument.

There were no transfers in or out of Level 3 categories in the periods presented.

As of December 31, 2020, investments were comprised of the following:

As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, all marketable securities held by the Company had remaining contractual maturities of three years or less.

As of December 31, 2021and 2020, the marketable securities in a loss position have a maturity of three years or less.

There have been no impairments of the Company’s assets measured and carried at fair value during the year ended December 31, 2021and 2020.

On February 3, 2020, in connection with the closing of the IPO, the Company filed an amended and restated certificate of incorporation, which, among other things, restated the number of shares of all classes of stock that the Company has authority to issue to 510,000,000 shares, of which (i) 500,000,000 shares shall be a class designated as common stock, par value $0.0001 per share, and (ii) 10,000,000 shares shall be a class designated as undesignated preferred stock, par value $0.0001 per share.

The Company’s 2017 Employee, Director and Consultant Equity Incentive Plan, as amended (the “2017 Plan”), provided for the Company to grant qualified incentive options, nonqualified options, stock grants and other stock-based awards to employees and non-employees to purchase the Company’s common stock. Upon the effectiveness of the 2020 Plan (as defined below), no further issuances were made under the 2017 Plan.

The 2020 Stock Option and Incentive Plan (the “2020 Plan”) was approved by our board of directors on December 5, 2019, and the Company’s stockholders on January 14, 2020 and became effective on the date immediately prior to the date on which the registration statement for the Company’s IPO was declared effective. The 2020 Plan provides for the grant of incentive stock options, non-qualified stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock units, restricted stock awards, unrestricted stock awards, cash-based awards and dividend equivalent rights to the Company’s officers, employees, directors and consultants. The number of shares initially reserved for issuance under the 2020 Plan was 6,665,891, which shall be cumulatively increased on January 1, 2021 and each January 1 thereafter by 4% of the number of shares of the Company’s common stock outstanding on the immediately preceding December 31 or such lesser number of shares determined by the Company’s board of directors or compensation, nomination, and corporate governance committee of the board of directors. As of December 31, 2021, 5,211,827 shares remained available for issuance under the 2020 Plan. The number of authorized shares reserved for issuance under the 2020 Plan was increased by 1,449,384 shares effective as of January 1, 2022.

The 2020 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “2020 ESPP”) was approved by the Company’s board of directors on December 5, 2019, and our stockholders on January 14, 2020, and became effective on the date immediately prior to the date on which the registration statement for the Company’s IPO was declared effective. A total of 326,364 shares of common stock were initially reserved for issuance under this plan, which shall be cumulatively increased on January 1, 2021 and each January 1 thereafter by 1% of the number of shares of the Company’s common stock outstanding on the immediately preceding December 31 or such lesser number of shares determined by the Company’s board of directors or compensation, nomination and corporate governance committee of the board of directors. As of December 31, 2021, 646,566 shares remained available for issuance under the 2020 Plan. The number of authorized shares reserved for issuance under the 2020 Plan was increased by 326,364 shares effective as of January 1, 2022.